January 5, 2006
Conference Bowl Break-Down
Bowl season is over, the Texas Longhorns are our national champions, and there were a few surprises thrown in for good measure. With the incessant debate about which conference is the best, it's interesting to see how they stacked up in bowl performance. The results might be a little shocking.The ACC and Big 12 both finished 5-3, giving them the best bowl record, the Big 12 getting the edge on point differential. The Big 10,
Two of the Pac 10's best teams fell in their bowl games, but the other three teams won.
The SEC, Mountain West, Conference USA, and the MAC all split their games, winning the same number as they lost.
Obviously this doesn't do much to measure a conference top-to-bottom, but it does give us an idea about where the power was distributed at the top of the conferences. Below are the conference-by-conference wins and losses in one convenient place for your perusal. One interesting point is that if any conference played another conference twice, it split the games... except in the Big 12 vs. Pac 10 matchups, where the Big 12 won both (Oklahoma and Texas defeating Oregon and USC respectively).
| ACC (5-3) | |
| W | L |
| Big East S. Fla. |
Big 10 PSU |
| Big 10 Minn. |
Mtn. West Utah |
| Big 12 Colorado |
SEC LSU |
| Big East Louisville |
|
| WAC Boise |
|
| Big East (1-3) | |
| W | L |
| SEC UGA |
Pac 10 ASU |
| ACC NC St. |
|
| ACC VA Tech |
|
| Big Ten (3-4) | |
| W | L |
| ACC FSU |
ACC UVA |
| Independent Notre Dame |
Big 12 Nebraska |
| SEC Auburn |
Big Ten UCLA |
| SEC Florida |
|
| Big 12 (5-3) | |
| W | L |
| Big 10 Michigan |
ACC Clemson |
| Pac 10 Oregon |
Mtn. West TCU |
| Pac 10 USC |
SEC Alabama |
| SEC S. Car. |
|
| CUSA Houston |
|
| CUSA (3-3) | |
| W | L |
| MAC Akron |
Big 12 Kansas |
| Sun Belt Ark. St. |
MAC Toledo |
| WAC Fresno |
WAC Nevada |
| Ind. (1-1) | |
| W | L |
| Mtn. West Col. St. |
Big 10 Ohio State |
| MAC (1-1) | |
| W | L |
| CUSA UTEP |
CUSA Memphis |
| Mtn. West (2-2) | |
| W | L |
| ACC Ga. Tech |
Ind. Navy |
| Big 12 Iowa St. |
Pac 10 Cal |
| Pac 10 (3-2) | |
| W | L |
| Big East Rutgers |
Big 10 Oklahoma |
| Big 10 N'western |
Big 12 Texas |
| Mtn. West BYU |
|
| SEC (3-3) | |
| W | L |
| ACC Miami |
Big East WVU |
| Big 10 Iowa |
Big 10 Wisconsin |
| Big 12 Tx. Tech |
Big 12 Missouri |
| Sun Belt (0-1) | |
| W | L |
| CUSA So. Miss. |
|
| WAC (1-2) | |
| W | L |
| CUSA UCF |
ACC BC |
| CUSA Tulsa |
|
Update: Corrections made as per comments. Thanks.
Comments:
BILDO said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:30 AM — 167.239.197.65 — link — abuse?
Stating that the BIG TEN was not that really great of a conference this year is obsurd. Iowa was robbed, and Michigan was robbed. Referees have entirely too much power in these games. Its just sad that you don't consider these situations writing these comments about the BIG TEN.
Jason said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:38 AM — 68.85.104.123 — link — abuse?
I don't really think that you can measure conference strength this way. For example, a 7-4 Iowa team played Florida, while a 7-4 Michigan team played Nebraska. If Iowa played Nebraska and Michigan played Florida you could have a totally different outcome. It basically depends on the teams each bowl extends invitations to. I'm not trying to say that the Big 10 is a better conference or anything like that, it's just stupid to argue about things like this.
posted on January 5, 2006 2:55 AM — 12.223.203.217 — link — abuse?Pete Holiday said:
I don't know that this way is any better or worse than any other way, it's just interesting. Certainly, though, if the Big Ten were super-great all the way across the board (as many Big Ten zealots claimed) they wouldn't have lost to Florida or Nebraska like that.
And they did lose. Whine about the calls if you wish, I didn't see the Michigan game, but I've seen all I care to about the Iowa/Florida offsides call and there are two important points: 1) Iowa was, in fact, offsides and 2) Even if they had recovered the onside kick, they had a lot of work to do to tie the game.
The Big Ten underperformed in the bowl games, with the truly talented teams winning (OSU, Penn State) one team playing huge (Wisconsin) and then a few over-rated teams getting shown up (Northwestern, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota).
Let's also keep in mind that nobody would've guessed that Texas/USC and Oklahoma/Oregon would've been "favorable" matchups for the Big 12 ahead of time. They did what they needed to do to win those games, though.
Jason said:
posted on January 5, 2006 3:05 AM — 68.85.104.123 — link — abuse?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/01/04/bc.fbc.outbackmistake.ap/
Duckman said:
posted on January 5, 2006 3:05 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
I do not see how people can say the PAC-10 was weak this year. Yes USC and Oregon lost (in very close games I might add) but didn’t the mighty SEC lose three out of six games. I don’t see any conference that was dominating and I don’t see how anyone could state that the PAC-10 was weak and back it up with facts and stats.
posted on January 5, 2006 3:16 AM — 12.223.203.217 — link — abuse?
Jason: the conference was wrong. They didn't have any more video on the replay than anyone else did. Greenway's feet were behind the line of scrimmage, but the upper part of his body was not. But we're not going to debate this particular topic any more here. There are plenty of other places with a lot of analysis of it. Bottom line: Iowa lost.
Duckman: I certainly don't think the Pac 10 was any more weak this year than any other year that they're pumped up because folks get fooled by playing decent offense in a conference that doesn't know how to play defense.
I would say that of the 3-win conferences, the Big Ten probably had the best three wins... the Pac 10 probably with the worst three. With the SEC's being respectable, though not terribly impressive.Jason said:
posted on January 5, 2006 3:34 AM — 68.85.104.123 — link — abuse?
Pete, I'm not even an Iowa fan, I don't even care whether they win or lose, but the fact is, it's not the conference, it's the team. It all depends on which team shows up to play. Both Michigan and Iowa played to win, and there were bad calls that stopped them from doing so.
Duckman said:
posted on January 5, 2006 3:57 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Pete,
You state that the PAC-10 dose not know how to play defense but if you look at the PAC-10 bowl games the PAC-10 (in three out of five games)held their opponents under their average of points scored per game. How is this possible if the PAC-10 has weak defense? If the PAC-10 held Oklahoma, BYU, and Texas below their avg. then doesn’t that mean that the PAC-10 plays pretty good defense or at least as good as the conferences that all those teams play in? Stating that the PAC-10 plays bad defense is an opinion until you back it up with numbers and facts. If you cant back it up with numbers and facts then it just remains just an opinion. I am not looking for opinion. I am looking for facts.
Gerald said:
posted on January 5, 2006 10:12 AM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Duckman:
The SEC lost 3 games, true. But one of those losses was South Carolina with a first year coach implementing a new system. The other two losses were against teams with similar or better records (9 - 3 Auburn to 10 - 3 Wisconsin, and 10 - 3 UGA to 11 - 1 West Virginia). So, no bad losses.
Meanwhile, the SEC had quality wins. An injury riddled Florida team that also had a new coach implementing a new system beat Iowa, who destroyed them two years ago. Alabama, the SEC's #4 team, beat Texas Tech, the #2 team in the Big 12 in their home state. And LSU destroyed 9 - 3 Miami despite a new head coach, defensive coordinator, and a backup QB.
But wins of similar caliber for the PAC - 10 were lacking. 7 - 5 Northwestern? 7 - 5 Rutgers (whose last bowl appearance was when Jim Crow was still legal)? 6 - 6 BYU? Please. And unlike the SEC, where 3 bowl teams were with new coaches implementing new systems, all of the PAC - 10 bowl teams had longtime bowl - experienced coaches, the least experienced being Jeff Tedford, in his fourth season and 3rd bowl game.
The best comparison of the two conferences? Oregon and LSU. Both teams were playing backup QBs. Both teams had to get over missing out on the BCS. And both teams were playing former national contenders that were experiencing slippage of late. The PAC - 10 team lost to an unranked team, the SEC team beat the #9 team in the nation. And Oregon fans cannot console themselves into believing that the game was "close". Adrian Peterson was not 100% for that game, OU lost their offensive coordinator to another job, and further had Adrian Peterson not fumbled on the goal line the game would have been a rout. A major difference between the two conferences: both Oregon and LSU had capable QB play from their backups. But where LSU had 280 rushing yards against the nation's top rushing defense, Oregon produced no rushing yards against the same OU defense that UCLA, Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU were able to run on.
And the best part: this was clearly a down year for the SEC. Look at the players they lost to the NFL and all the coaching changes! But this was the best year that the PAC - 10 has had in awhile. A down year for the SEC was still better than an "up" year for the PAC - 10! USC is a great team, but the rest of your programs still have a gap to close. Cal loses their starting QB, WRs, and RB and a few defensive players and goes from 10 - 2 to 7 - 4. UGA loses their starting QB and WRs plus 2 starting LBs and a safety (all taken in the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft and all but the QB started NFL games this year) and they finish with the same record this year as last! And Auburn? They lose 4 first round picks (QB, 2 RBs, CB) plus their great safety (a much better college player than pro prospect) and still win 9 games, beating Alabama and UGA. SEC: better talent, better coaching, better teams!
Fan of the Game said:
posted on January 5, 2006 10:19 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
All in all, I think the bowl games have proved what most of us fans believe:
Any team, on any day, on any field has a chance to win the game.
"Hype" will always be a large part of college football. There are always going to be teams that are overrated, as well as teams that are underrated. There will be teams that do not live up to the hype, and those that do. But that's college football, and that's why we love it.Todd said:
posted on January 5, 2006 12:06 PM — 71.3.178.95 — link — abuse?
Anyone who tries to say that the officials in any game are the reason a team lost is just flat out wrong. Yes officials can make it difficult for a team to perform up to what they are capable, however, they are NEVER the reason that a team loses a game. If a team cannot beat another in 60 minutes of football and people pull it down to one play where an official makes a controversial call, that's the football teams fault. Yea it may make a good argument that officals in any game screwed a team over, see Iowa and even the FSU game, but the officials are NEVER the sole reason that a team loses a game.
Gerald said:
posted on January 5, 2006 1:39 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
canes alum:
Florida blew out ACC #1 FSU. LSU blew out ACC #2 Miami (who lest we forget dominated Virginia Tech). So, if the ACC is weak, what does that make you guys? The ACC is 5 - 3 true, but most of those came in Meineke Car Bowl types against either mid - majors or against teams that were mid - majors last year. The ACC's best bowl victory was probably UVA over Minnesota, followed by Clemson over Colorado. Wow! Meanwhile, the ACC had the bowl season's two worst losses: 40 - 3 to an LSU team playing its backup QB and 38 - 10 to 6 - 5 Utah. The only quality nonconference win the ACC had this year INCLUDING bowl season? Georgia Tech over Auburn. Please. As always, the SEC stinks until you compare them to everybody else!
Gerald said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:08 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Conference breakdowns:
For the Big 12, after Texas the next highest ranked team is 19, then 22 and 25. You guys were deep, but thin at the top.
And for all the bashing of the SEC, they had 5 teams in the AP and Coaches top 15 (UGA, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn). The Big 12 was second with 3 (Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin).
PAC - 10? After USC, the next highest ranked team was 12, and after that 16 then 25.
ACC? Virginia Tech is 7. BC and Miami are 17 and 18. Clemson is 21.
The Big 12? The only conference with 2 teams in the top 5, at 2 and 3. Wisconsin is next at 15, which is bizarrely low.
The Big East? WVU is 5. Louisville is 19.
Now, the SEC had the most ranked teams (5), and their teams had the highest average ranking (all in the top 15). The SEC also had the most top 10 teams (3). Once again the top conference!
Most unfair treatment by the polls: Wisconsin. They should be in the top 10, with 10 wins and a destruction of Auburn.
Blatant example of media bias: Notre Dame! They only beat two winning teams, 7 - 5 Michigan and Navy, they got killed by Ohio State, and their only claim to fame, nearly beating USC, looks a lot less impressive since another team closed the deal IN LOS ANGELES! Yet, they are ranked ahead of TCU (who actually played a tougher schedule) and 2 PAC - 10 teams with fewer losses (oh no, bolstering the dreaded "west coast bias" arguments ... and it isn't as if Notre Dame plays any worse on defense!)
Ah well, even in a down year the SEC is the best. And just wait until next year, when Miles, Spurrier, and Meyer have settled in. And Tennessee finally has a competent offensive coordinator, Russell and Cox have competition ... I smell another undefeated season for an SEC team!
VOLPIMP said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:31 PM — 208.0.27.10 — link — abuse?
Canes alum, the SEC was definitely weak this year, but consider the VOLS had their worst year in recent memory this year, yet still beat LSU, who blew you guys right back to Fla. Strange huh, maybe you guys should change your mascot to, say, Tropical Depressions? At least you did follow suit, and fire half your staff like we did.
Duckman said:
posted on January 5, 2006 3:55 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Gerald,
I will agree with you that ND was overrated. We agreed on this two weeks ago and we agree on it now. As fun and easy as it is to bash the Irish I do not believe in kicking a team while they are down so I wont.
I have never herd you refer to the PAC-10 as weak so I am kind of surprised that you were the only one to respond. I assume it is because I used your beloved SEC as a basis for a comparison. You never answered my question about the PAC-10 defense so will assume that you would disagree with Pete. The team that you hold high is LSU. LSU crushed Miami. I congratulate them on their victory. LSU is a great team but didn’t they almost lose to ASU who is in the middle of the PAC-10. I don’t see how losing to a Oklahoma team that is 8-4 by 3 points is worse then losing to a Wisconsin team that is 9-3 by 14 points. I know that you think that Wisconsin is underrated but you did not think that until they beat the mighty Auburn. Next we will look at Georgia and USC. Both lost by 3 points. Both lost to good teams but who would you rather lose to Texas or WV. Alabama came very close to losing to Texas Teck. While UCLA stomped on NW. NW and Texas Teck are very comparable. It would seem to me that the SEC is not any better then any other conference.
I am not trying to bash on the SEC or any other conference for that matter. I am just pointing out that the PAC-10 is not weak. If they were then every time the PAC-10 played a SEC team then the SEC team should destroy them every time and this is not the case. there is no strong evidence that suggests the PAC-10 is weak so I guess that saying a phrase like the PAC-10 is weak is a stupid statement. I don’t know fore sure but what is the SEC vs. PAC-10 record?
Mike said:
posted on January 5, 2006 4:13 PM — 68.85.104.123 — link — abuse?
This is why we need a playoff in college football. Who cares how many wins and losses each conference had. Texas and USC were certainly great teams, but there would be a lot of other teams who would have had a good chance of knocking them off and they didn't get the chance because they weren't on Texas' or USC's schedule. In a playoff, it doesn't matter how tough your conference is, because it will match up good teams from one conference against good teams from another and won't leave it up to bowl committees to decide who plays who in what can sometimes be a totally unfair matchup.
UnderratedBadgerFan said:
posted on January 5, 2006 4:31 PM — 138.162.140.41 — link — abuse?
Good call "Gerald" Even though I'm from Wisconsin, I could not be more upset with the lack of respect for our Wisconsin Badgers. Every year it seems like we have to fight and claw our way to the top 10 and even when we do get close they always scrutinize the smallest of things in our performance. Sure we don't and probably never will have a QB up for Heisman, but we know how to pound pound pound. We're not flashy and never will be but we WIN! That's fact not opinion. We're used to being underapprectiated. No big deal, I would just like to see us for a fight for the Nat'l Title sometime before I die! Go Badgers. Nice job Texas on a well deserved WIN!
Gerald said:
posted on January 5, 2006 5:16 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Duckman:
Actually, I have stated on this board several times that this was one of the better recent years for the PAC - 10, with 3 teams winning 10 or more games. I especially liked Oregon's ability to keep it together after Clemens went down and how UCLA did not fold after the two humiliating losses. My post was merely aimed at those who were claiming that the SEC was down this year and overrated generally, which you must admit has been coming from the PAC - 10 fans mostly the past two years because of the USC-LSU-Auburn stuff. In reality I do not put much stock in rankings, as after all it was the rankings that screwed Auburn last year and tried to do the same to LSU two years ago. I only care about wins and losses.
And in the wins and losses, the SEC takes it! Facts are facts! 5 teams to win 9 games or more. No other conference had more than 3! Even the 6th place team won 7 games with a victory over a Florida, who beat the ACC champs. Auburn and UGA getting upset in bowl games does not change that.
Incidentally, let us talk about Auburn and UGA. Off last year's team they lost 7 guys who are now STARTING AS ROOKIES in the NFL (RB Ronnie Brown, RB Carnell Williams, CB Carlos Rogers, LB Odell Thurman, LB David Pollack, WR Reggie Brown, SS Thomas Davis), and THAT does not include 2 four year starter QBs; 1st round draft pick and SEC Player of the Year Jason Campbell, and the winningest QB in NCAA history 4 year starter David Greene, nor does it include UGA's other starting WR who also was drafted in the 4th round.
Yet, UGA and Auburn bounced back to win 19 games and an SEC title between them. So what if they lost their bowl games? I do not mean to offend, but when was the last time that Oregon lost all that talent and bounced right back to win 9 or 10 games and win the conference title the next year? For that matter, when was the last time Oregon had that talent to lose? When has any PAC - 10 team outside of this current USC edition? UCLA? Nope. Arizona? Nope. Arizona State? Nope. Oregon? Nope. Oregon State? Nope. Washington State? Nope. Washington? Not since Don James!
Now, a lot can be said for UCLA's being LAST IN THE NCAA IN RUSHING DEFENSE AND CLOSE TO THE BOTTOM IN TOTAL DEFENSE and still manage to win 10 games. Still, you must admit that such is not conducive to long term success, right? And where UCLA gave up almost 300 yards to Reggie Bush, Texas pretty much contained him (82 rushing yards, 30 of them on one play), right? Oregon was shredded by Reggie Bush too, if I recall.
I have no problem with the PAC - 10. Why should I? I like college football, and no college football fan should oppose good football wherever it occurs. I just want the PAC - 10 to play better; to stop being a league where you can have the worst rushing defense in Division I - A and still win 10 games; to stop being a league where a team can lose to Division II team and still win 4 conference games; basically to stop being a league where any team can win 34 straight. Another thing on the defenses? Reggie Bush looked like superman on the West Coast, but was held in check against Texas. As a matter of fact, a web column that I just read stated that Bush didn't do much against Oklahoma last year or even Michigan the year before: in all 3 games USC relied on LenDale White and even Herschel Dennis more. Bush also didn't do a whole lot in those two games against Auburn or even against Arkansas this year. That is a fact that should concern A) the Houston Texans and B) PAC - 10 recruiters and defensive coordinators. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Fan of the Game said:
posted on January 5, 2006 5:20 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Mike....I couldn't agree more. We may never really truly know what team is the best in the country, when the BCS format can only guarantee us winners of bowl games. Unfortunately, rankings spit out by a computerized "Miss Cleo" predict the futures of a select number of teams, which is then averaged in with 2 separate polls based on popular OPINION (which by the way, never match one another from top to bottom anyway, which gives equal weight to coaches and writers regardless of geographical location and lack of knowledge of all Div.I programs). The results are then weighted by the BCS selection committee and combined with automatic bids (based on a guarantee that certain conferences will be represented in the BCS by their conf. champions, regardless of how popular OPINION ranks them). And in the end...we get it! Or rather we get it in the end! The BCS does little more than give fodder for debate as to which team really is the best in the country. In my own opinion, Texas earned their victory, allthough I still believe that USC is a better team, however, I find it hard to believe that either of them could've beaten LSU at the level the Tigers played at against miami. Who knows? I don't. The only thing I am certain about is that the best team in the country will always be a matter of opinion as long as the BCS is around.
Horn said:
posted on January 5, 2006 5:35 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game...you must be smokin some good crack. How can you say that USC and Texas wouldn't be able to beat LSU?!? If you look at LSU's record they have 2 loses. Texas is undefeated. That showes that Texas is a better team than LSU. With the recent drug charges brought up on an LSU player, it might just show why they were playing like they could feel no pain against Miami. The players being on drugs also explains why they would hit another player in the head with a helmet.
Jess said:
posted on January 5, 2006 9:34 PM — 65.184.73.14 — link — abuse?
There are a thousand ways to read the stats here. I have to say, I am quite impressed with the Big 12 this year. I am a University of Tennesse fan and loyal to the SEC. I thought there were a few games that the results via rankings were unfair to the SEC teams, because there were too many top 10 against top 10 teams playing within our conference. After the bowl results, I have to disagree. It looks as though the SEC teams were ranked, at best, fairly, but the BIG 12 teams, whom I thought were ranked appropriately, were under ranked. Granted, the SEC bowl teams were competing in more important bowl games, but most of the teams that lost were ranked well above the teams they played. With consideration to all conference performances throughout the 2006 bowl season, I am encouraged through an optimistic choice of thinking. The conferences that were weaker are becoming stronger. The conferences that were always considered strong are not weakening (Take the Big 12 for example... they proved they are still strong in the bowl season, but the respect due to other conferences that used to be considered weak was given in the beginning and earned in the end).
This means more excitement has been added to the game. It is also good news for atheletes & coaches and programs.
Wait a second. If this continues. We will have to have a playoff. I think it is inevitable. I think it will happen, however, when the time is right. When it happens, this will be good for the NFL. Players will be better prepaired, as rookies, to go to the next level. They will consistently play better players in college, play a smidge (sorry, from TN) of a longer season, and deal w/ a similar system to that of the NFL. The "cool" thing is... how friggin' awesome is the NFL going to be when this starts happening?
The sport is getting better, because it is leveling out, adding more talent, more competition, more twists, more logic, more accuracy and more refinement and fairness to the game. This is truly, the most exciting sport on earth.
A side thought. Maybe it is a good thing for playoffs not to exist within college football. It teaches that calls, rules, judgements, etc. may be unfair, but they have to accept them and still strive to be optimistic and perform at their best in every situation. Right? WRONG. Sometimes stereotyping is necessary, especially when playing the devil's advocate regarding this point. >A
I could go on, obviously. Thoughts: Playoffs; Financial, or educational incentives to --this is a must-- SENIORS who have a decent (you all define) GPA --and get to a bowl game. It HAS to be both. Otherwise, we are killing the NFL. We have to give those who were the best atheletically, but not acedemically (but maybe just good enough, which often isn't good enough, to get a second chance) a second chance to accel. Otherwise, the brainiac, the intellectually gifted, that watches CFB every friggin chance they get, that reflects those who disagree w/ me only when they feel that the CFB athelete (other sports should be included as well) SHOULD have the same capabilities as they do, is a friggin hypocrate. I could go on. This is bascially, automatic writing w/ validity. Hopefully, someone that has some kind of pull will read this and deciphre the logic that is evident w/in this posting. Feel it or don't. Care or don't. Your response, to this unorganized email defines you. I am a well educated man who has time to express what he feels is right, however, not to worry about someone picking apart the grammatical errors within it. I probably won't even follow up on the responses. I am off to offer my views regarding a broader audience. I hope this reaches people w/ wisdom and power. I hope this reaches people of consideration. I hope this reaches those who are insiteful. Peace out, YO!
Go SEC. Go depth.
Tommy Trojan said:
posted on January 6, 2006 2:25 AM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
I will have to weigh in with Gerald on this one. The SEC did play more "quality" opponents than the other conferences did - and came away with a 3-3 record and outscored them by four. The Pac-10's three wins against mediocre opponents isn't anything memorial. LSU thrashing of Miami was and Florida had a big win. Oregon barely lost to a resurgent Oklahoma team, but, they were really beat down physically in that game. They were lucky to come that close. And, USC played a great team but did not get the job done this year.
The SEC has some gripes in that all of their teams had at least two losses heading into their bowl games - mostly against each other. That shows what a tough conference that it really was and is. The gripe as I understand it is: If one of their teams should go undefeated - then they probably surely ought to have the chance to play for a BCS title. It's a tough deal. With all of the parity in the SEC - it will be very hard for any team to ever get that shot. And, I don't always beleive that an undefeated team is always better than a one loss team. I don't like the BCS system. And, I don't beleive that just because you haven't lost that that makes you a top two team. For instance: I don't think that Penn State with their one loss is any better than LSU with their two losses. Any team can lose a game on any Saturday. Nobody is perfect all the time - not even USC. And, I wish we could have a rematch of that game. But, it will not happen this year. Maybe next year.
An interesting point for all the die hard defensive freaks down south though: Other than LSU and Alabama playing real good defense in their games - I noticed plenty of yardage put up on some SEC defenses. I also noticed that USC hung about 585 yards on Texas - which is about their average (not to mention the 38 points). Texas did not win that game with defense (in fact they had very little of that). They won it with offense. Georgia gave up piles of yardage and points to West Virginia. Auburn gave up tons of yardage to Wisconsin. Keep in mind: these same SEC teams piled up yardage and scored points also. I beleive that it points out that it has to do with the kind of teams that you are playing against which is going to dictate if the game is an offensive or defensive struggle. When the SEC defenses came up against those good offensive teams with weak defenses - they seemed to play more like Pac-10 teams than SEC teams. Gerald, since you obviously are heavy into the statistics, check in on this. I think you'll find out that your SEC teams yardage and point totals increased across the board - as they ran into much better offensive teams in these bowls games. The point is: the Pac-10 has great offensive teams. It does not mean that the defenses are terrible - you just have to score to keep up. If you get behind by 28 like Georgia did - then it's bombs away until they get back into the game. Happens all day long when somebody is playing a good offense. UCLA got way behind to Northwestern. Again, bombs away. In the SEC, nobody usually gets that far behind, because of the conservative approach to the game. Nobody has to "air it out" on every single play because "three yards and a cloud of dust" does not cause tremendous deficits to happen. Anyway, just some food for thought. I thought that it was interesting that when the SEC defenses were getting scored on that the offenses were able to come to life and put points on the board also. Also, looks as if the SEC might end up recruiting the top four QB's (out of high school) in the country this year. That will surely put a strain on those SEC defenses and you might see a whole lot more scoring in this conference in the comming years.Tommie Trojan
Duckman said:
posted on January 6, 2006 5:31 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Gerald,
Before I address your final question I would like to address some statements in post #27. You state that most of the criticism about the SEC has come from PAC-10 fans. I disagree. Most SEC fans are the ones with their chests out talking trash about how the SEC is great and every other conference is just a stepping stone. Know matter what happens the SEC never seems to lose their arrogance. This in turn has offended many other fans in many other conferences. These fans who are offended develop spite toward the SEC.
I agree with you on the ranking issue. The BCS has destroyed its credibility over the years. You said it best when you said that “facts are facts” and “all that matters are wins and losses” but you left out Stats. Stats can be far more reliable in a teams avg. performance by yards gained and yards lost then wins and loses. You go on to state “ the SEC has five teams with nine wins or more”. This dose not prove anything because they are not playing PAC-10 teams and therefore is not relevant to our discussion. But just for fun I’ll bite. The fist thing is that the SEC has twelve teams compared to the PAC-10’s 10. It would seem pretty obvious that more winning teams would come out of a larger conference. It only proves that there are some doormats in the SEC. It also proves that there is a serous mismatch between the top and bottom of the SEC.
Then you go on to state that “except USC when has the PAC-10 turned out as much talent as a top SEC team“. You can not exclude a team from the discussion just to help your case. Hear is your answer off the top of my head 2003,04,05-USC, 2001-Oregon, 2000-Oregon State. That is a lot in five years. I am sure there are more but don’t want to do the research. The one thing that I will not disagree with you on is that it takes a wile for PAC-10 teams to rebound from such loss.
Next you want to know how UCLA can win 9 games with such a bad defense. They only played 8 PAC-10 teams so only 8 games are relevant to our discussion. Out of those eight they were 6-2. I did some research and found that UCLA gave up an avg. of 33 pts a game. They won because they avg. 38 in points scored per game. Their avg. win spread was only 4.5. Bad defense but great offence. They did not win by much but they still won.
Lets talk about how Reggie Bush rushed for 300 yards against UCLA and only ran for 82 against Texas. We agree that the UCLA defense is bad so it is little wonder they attacked the weakest part of their defense being the rushing defense. Texas has been much better at stopping the run this year therefore you attack their weakest point being their passing defense. Reggie only ran the ball 13 times against Texas compared to 24 times against UCLA. It dose not matter how you get the yards as long as you get them. Attack the weakest point. That is how good coaching wins ball games. The only good way to compare the Texas defense to the avg. PAC-10 defense is look at how many total yards USC has been able to gain on avg. and then compare it to how many total yards they were able to gain against Texas. USC on avg. gains 580 total yards per game. Against Texas they were able to gain 574 total yards. A difference of only 6 yards. If the Texas defense was any better then the avg. PAC-10 defense then USC would have been held below their avg. by a lot more then six yards. I wont compare the USC offense to the Arkansas defense because it is an obvious mismatch. I will use the ASU offence vs. LSU defense. If LSU played any better defense then what was played in the PAC-10 then LSU should have held ASU below their avg.. The fact is that LSU was unable to do that. ASU on avg. gains 504 in total yard per game. While playing the LSU defense they were able to gain 560 total yards. Facts are facts and these are all facts. No conference has proved themselves to be any better then the avg. PAC-10 defense. And further more there is no evidence that suggests the SEC or any other conference is any better then the PAC-10. Now keep in mind that I am talking about a total conference and not individual teams. Your statements like “ I just want the PAC-10 to play better football” has know foundation.
I do not think that the SEC is weak. Only a fool would make a statement like that. I am saying that they are know better then the PAC-10.
Now on to you last question. If I understood you correctly you want to know if the fact that Bush was not used all that much in the big games will affect recruiting. I should hope so. To be a successful team you have to attack an enemies weak spot. If your primary concern is getting good stats and getting the ball a lot despite the fact that it hurts your teams chances of wining then the SEC can have them. We want people who are playing for the team and not their own glory. Hear is a question of my own. If the PAC-10 plays bad defense then why didn’t LSU or Texas do any better then the PAC-10 defenses?
P.S. GO DUCKS!!!Brian said:
posted on January 6, 2006 9:39 AM — 65.115.141.154 — link — abuse?
I agree with you 100% Horn. Texas & USC were the two best teams playing for 2005 BCS National Championship - Texas (1) & USC (2). It was a great run for USC while it lasted and although it may sound pre-mature, Texas now has the chance to become the greatest BCS Champion of all time if they run the table next year. To say that a two loss LSU would have beaten Texas & USC is a non-factor now. Texas is #1 for 2005 and now they are the best regardless of what people think about the Big 12 Conference. I respect the Strength of Schedule formula, but it is way overated. I don't think it would be a factor if Texas played in the SEC or any other conference. Bottom line - the two best teams in the nation played in the Rose Bowl
Fan of the Game said:
posted on January 6, 2006 9:57 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Horn.......First of all, what I smoke is between me and your mother, and no one else. Secondly, there have been several times in recent history, that teams have gone undefeated, but did not win or even play for the NC. That does not mean that they are necessarily better than everyone, just everyone they played. Texas has played great football all year(except the A&M game). I also, believe that if LSU had played the same schedule, then they would have been undefeated as well. I agree that UT is the National Champion, based on the BCS format. I was merely making an observation as to how well the Tigers played against Miami. Given the LSU Tigers situation after Hurricane Katrina, I doubt that any team in their shoes, could've ran the table. There letdowns on the football field kept them out of the BCS NC game, and deservedly so. They didn't earn the right to be there, and UT did. Even so, LSU looked unbeatable against miami, and who knows? Maybe they were.
UTalum said:
posted on January 6, 2006 10:05 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Horn, you need to read everything before you comment. UT is the National Champion, end of story. LSU did look awesome against the canes, but that wasn't for the NC. However, your comments concerning "drug use" for players of LSU are not warranted. You give our university a bad name and need to put yourself in check. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we brought home the crystal.
Gerald said:
posted on January 6, 2006 10:45 AM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Fan of the Game:
" Secondly, there have been several times in recent history, that teams have gone undefeated, but did not win or even play for the NC. That does not mean that they are necessarily better than everyone, just everyone they played."
Instead of goring everyone else's ox with that comment, how about your own? Was USC the best team in the country last year, or just better than everyone they played? Could, say, AUBURN have beaten USC last year? Could, say, LSU have beaten USC two years ago? Oh, the experts all agree that USC was better than both Auburn and LSU. Well, the experts also said that USC would beat Texas this year. Just like they said Miami would beat Ohio State, Miami would beat Alabama, Miami would beat Nebraska, Florida would beat Nebraska, the Yankees would beat the Red Sox, the Lakers would beat the Pistons, and New England would beat the Rams. The experts are wrong all the time!
So while you are considering whether a 2 loss team could have beaten undefeated Texas, consider whether Auburn and LSU teams that finished with the same record against USC could have done the same. It is only fair. Right?
JT said:
posted on January 6, 2006 1:12 PM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
Thoughts on TCU from a TCU fan:
Mountain West Conference Champions...Great Start
Undefeated Against the Big 12 Who Snubbed them in favor of Baylor...Point Made
2-0 vs. BCS Teams from 2004-05...Meaningless
Only Loss Coming to Dismal Sister-City Rival After Upsetting OU...PricelessI'd love to have that SMU game back, but the Frogs are definitely better than Notre Dame & Georgia. Thanks to the Coaches for recognizing this. :) Congrats to the Big 12 on such success in Bowl games; too bad TCU couldn't be a part of that!
Gerald said:
posted on January 6, 2006 1:17 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Duckman:
It comes down to this. I am very sure that Auburn, UGA, and LSU will win 9 games again next year, and that they will be joined in doing so by at least one other SEC team, likely Florida, Alabama, and/or Tennessee, and even then there is a chance that Arkansas or South Carolina will be back. Why? Because anywhere from 3 to 6 SEC programs get it done EVERY YEAR. Can the same be said about the PAC - 10? No. And the fact is that no other conference comes close to matching that. The Big 12 did for awhile, but then Texas A&M, Nebraska, Kansas State, and Colorado all fell off.
PAC - 10 fans (and ACC fans who also bash us) claim that the conference is unbalanced, and that we play easy teams out of conference. Please. Washington and Washington State were two of the worst teams in Division I - A, as is Duke. And as for out - of - conference matchups ... UC - Davis. Sacramento State. Montana. New Mexico State. San Jose State. San Diego State. Utah State. Any of that ring a bell? Whether it is a I - AA team or some lower division I - A team no quality major conference team is going to lose to a team like that in 100 years! Admit it, it is true. People talking about Auburn's "easy schedule" last year; like San Diego State or Hawaii was going to beat Auburn. Please.
Are SEC fans arrogant? Yes. I agree that some of it is nonsense. But a lot of what we get back is nonsense too; about how the SEC has great athletes but bad coaching (true from the early 80s to the early 90s but not anymore), how the style of play is boring, how the teams are slow and can't score, etc. No matter how many national titles and bowl games we win or big time players we send to the NFL, it never stops.
Make no mistake, a lot of it comes from the media. The media prefers the passing game, and furthermore USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, etc.; a lot of them either went to those schools (or similar) or send their kids to them. What national media figure went to Auburn or would send his or her kid to Tennessee? And that comes out in how they rank teams. They don't care about the talent or the coaching or who beat who, they just want "their schools" or "their types of schools" to win, and every year it is the same thing. There is absolutely NO WAY a USC, UCLA, Washington, Cal, etc. could finish undefeated and not get at least the AP title, and the media will always claim that the passing school from the west coast is better no matter what. SEC fans (and Big 12 fans) hear it all the time and are sick of it. Again, when was the last time an SEC player won the Heisman? Did not Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams put up similar numbers to Reggie Bush and LenDale White? Did not David Greene win more games than any other QB in NCAA history? And you can't tell me that Peyton Manning wouldn't have won the Heisman if he played at Cal, Oregon, or UCLA. SEC players don't even get invited to the Heisman ceremony anymore. Oregon didn't get an at - large BCS bid this year or Cal last year? Well imagine winning 9 or 10 games a year for 6 or 7 years and STILL not getting one! That type of stuff is why so many so many SEC fans act like provincialist jerks. I do not condone such behavior, but I understand it.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on January 6, 2006 2:34 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Geraldo.....without a doubt! I acknowledge USC's claim to the NC, but YES! I do believe Auburn and LSU were good enough teams that they stood a great chance of defeating the Trojans. I have stated several times that the so-called "experts" have more to do with who plays for what, than the actual teams do. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your post, but I think I answered your questions. Unfortuantely, you should read more of these posts before you comment and put less faith in your "experts". Your ridiculous comments have been addressed over and over again prior to this post. You really do need to pay attention to whats going on in here if you expect others to share your opinions.
Big 12 Analyst said:
posted on January 6, 2006 3:26 PM — 130.76.64.15 — link — abuse?
Duckman post 33:
While I agree with a lot of your post and a lot of it is pretty well thought out. Some of it is flawed, the thing I noticed is where you discuss the average yards USC put up vs the average yards they normally put up. It is unfair just to take yards into account because it's not the yards that matter, it's the points that matter. Many times in pac 10 play they pulled lienart or at least slowed the playbook down and put in second string because the score was already out of hand. This would create a lower average yards. During the texas game the playbook and players were full throttle for 60 minutes and texas held them in check and kept the score much lower then their average. If talking about pac 10 vs big 12 defense, a much better game to look at is the OU vs Oregon game. OU's defense kept oregon very much in check in yards and in points, something of which pac 10 defenses were unable to do. It's no secret the pac 10 prides itself on offense and thinks of defense second hand. Demonstrated by SC not punting the ball on 4-2 from it's texas 45 with 2 minutes left. You wouldn't see any big 12 or sec team do that because they would leave it up to the defense to win the game because as it's said out here offense wins games defense wins championships
Marcus James said:
posted on January 6, 2006 4:01 PM — 64.207.21.68 — link — abuse?
TCU in the Big 12? Lets try it! TCU would literally take the place of Baylor. Baylor had five wins this year and are improved. TCU would manage 1 (maybe 2) win in the Big 12. TCU would not beat Oklahoma with a healthy AP. Does TCU play OK next year? Hope so! Which would you prefer, a winning record in your current conference or losing record in the Big 12? Huskers and Oklahoma are progressing and Texas... enough said. Then you have TX Tech, Missouri, Kansas....man why do I bother with this. BUT, keep the Horned Frog faith, I guess.
Big 12 improves across the board next year, with the exception of Colorado!
Soonerfan said:
posted on January 6, 2006 4:02 PM — 130.76.64.15 — link — abuse?
Quick thought about a playoff system vs bcs.
As a sooner fan I enjoy going to a game in september and living and dying by each play because I know that the money I paid to see that game is just as important as the money I'd spend to see my team play in november. If you have a playoff you can lose 2-3 and it not be that big of a deal as long as you make it in. The team can be sorry the first couple games. I enjoy seeing a complete season. I understand why a playoff could be good in some respects but it also takes away from fans and students ability to watch their team play the critical games
Roger said:
posted on January 6, 2006 4:10 PM — 66.69.230.143 — link — abuse?
SEC is the fourth best conference in NCAA football right now. Big 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC.
You cant put the Big 12 down because Texas is the most dominant team of the past decade in College Football. The SEC had no dominant team this year so obviously their teams will be ranked higher, as they didnt have one team handing all the other teams losses.
Can you see LSU, Georgia, Auburn beating teams like Ohio State, Texas, or USC? Absolutely not, beat the Big Easts best before you come gloating on a message board that your conference is so great.
Duckman said:
posted on January 6, 2006 5:58 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Gerald,
For some reason you chose you argue points that you have read other posts instead of arguing points in my post. You point out that the PAC-10 plays some cupcakes. Big deal, everyone plays cupcakes. You also point out (again) that the SEC has more winning teams than the PAC-10. Bigger conference=More winning teams. I would like to point out that either one of these points are relevant to our discussion. They were not playing PAC-10 teams while they acquired these wins. The only relevant evidence are SEC vs. PAC-10 mach ups and comparing how each team performed in yards lost and yards gained. Then compare those yards to how the team dose on avg. in their conference. You must agree that this is as objective was at looking at it. You can run the numbers all you want but it keeps coming up. The PAC-10 is very competitive when compared to the SEC.
It comes down to this (hahaha). You did not answer my question. You also did not attempt to discredit any facts that I used in my post. That must mean that you acknowledge that they are correct. If those facts are correct (and they are) then you must agree that the PAC-10 and SEC are about equal. Considering that their is know credible evidence to point out otherwise means that a statement like “the SEC plays better football then the PAC-10” is completely untrue. In fact all the credible evidence points to the PAC-10 being very competitive playing SEC teams. Facts are facts!!!
The one thing that I noticed that everyone’s posts have in common is that they think that the media hates them. Evan ND fans think that the media hates them. Kind of funny. The other thing that I notice that everyone has in common is they hate the BCS. How much longer will we sit around and cry about the BCS. How much longer will we sit around and watch the BCS ruin college football. Is anything being done. Until the BCS is done away with we never truly have a National Champion. Kind of sad.
P.S. I know that you can not admit in public that the PAC-10 is just as good as the SEC because you might be thrown of a roof or stabbed by other fans. I understand.
P.P.S. GO DUCKS!!!!
Duckman said:
posted on January 6, 2006 8:52 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Big 12 Analyst,
Using the avg. yards gained and lost is far more accurate in judging a teams avg. performance in comparison to the score. The score dose not reflect the ability of the team to move the ball because it dose not take into account turnovers and field position. I understand that it is points that matter but if a team gets 2 turnovers inside the opponents 20 yard line and then turns them into touchdowns then the score is misleading if you are to judge a teams overall performance.
You are thinking of judging a team by one game and judging that conference by one game that you seen. You must look at all the BIG 12 vs. PAC-10 games and then compare how they preformed against each other against how they preformed in their conferences on avg.. You must look past one piece of evidence and observe all the evidence. Teams play good one week and bad the next. This is why you must look at the avg. to judge how good they are.
P.S. Congratulations on you victory Sooners. See you soon.
P.P.S. GO DUCKS!!!
Boze said:
posted on January 7, 2006 12:26 AM — 222.93.175.248 — link — abuse?
"TCU would win 1 maybe 2 games in the Big 12" Are you smoking crack dude? TCU won 2 Big 12 games this year. That TCU=Baylor comment has been played to death, find a new argument. Granted if the Frogs were in the Big 12 they would lose more games. However, after a couple of years they could recruit better players playing in that conference and be competitive. Kansas sucks, A&M sucks, Missouri is decent, K-state is getting worse. Why do I bother.
We beat OU.
We beat ISU, which was 1 win away from playing in the Big 12 championship. Smoke up Marcus!Duckman said:
posted on January 8, 2006 8:18 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Big 12 Analyst,
I almost overlooked this. If points are what matters then the Ducks held Sooners to 10 points under their avg. points scored. Do you still agree with post#44? I will agree with you on one thing. You will not see a Big 12 team go fore it on 4th and 2 as much as you will see it in the PAC-10. Sometimes it wins games and sometimes it loses games, but it always is dam fun to watch. Sometimes you just have to go for it! You may not remember all the games you won while going for it, but you will remember the games you lost because of it.
I would like to see some numbers on how many times the Big 12 went for it on 4th down compared to how many times the PAC-10 went for it on 4th down.usmciniraq said:
posted on January 9, 2006 5:05 AM — 192.156.58.34 — link — abuse?
Duckman you asked for stats and facts well here they are. Take the top 5 teams from the pac10 and big ten in the order they finished the season and compare their defenses. 1. usc 22.9 ppg/ psu 17ppg 2. ore 23.2 ppg/ osu 15.3 ppg 3. ucla 34.2 ppg/ wis 23.8 ppg 4 cal 21.2 ppg/ iowa 20ppg 5. asu 29.9 ppg/ mich 20.3 ppg. Are those good enough to prove to you that west coast is all offense and no defense. And your point about usc's defense holding texas below their season average. 1 ohio state only gave up 25 to texas. 2 i should hope to God that the defense of the number one team in the nation doesnt give up 50+ points. 3 they still gave up 41 points and 467 tot yds..... to ONE man.
Duckman said:
posted on January 9, 2006 9:26 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Usmciniraq,
Thank you for serving our country.
I like numbers only when used in a credible and objective way. You are not using stats in a way that is relevant to our discussion. You are trying to do what Gerald is doing. You are telling me how many points the top five Big 10 teams gave up on avg. and comparing it to how many points the top five PAC 10 teams gave up on avg.. These stats are not relevant when trying to compare conference strength against another conferences because most of these stats were developed while playing their own conference teams and not PAC 10 teams. If someone disagrees with this please tell me why.
I understand that you do not have time to do the research so I will fill you in on something. USC had a average defense. It is not surprising that Texas put 40 points up on them. I will openly admit that OSU has a defense that is better then anyone in the PAC-10.
Face it. The PAC 10 is not any weaker then any other conference. It is an urban legend.
P.S. GO DUCKS!!!
Hookem Horns said:
posted on January 10, 2006 9:04 PM — 24.175.254.140 — link — abuse?
Big XII 2-0 against pac X and 5-3 is not bad. Go BIG XII!!!
Hookem Horns said:
posted on January 10, 2006 9:35 PM — 24.175.254.140 — link — abuse?
When you concentrate on numbers meaning yardage stats ect, you loose track of what's really important. Those numbers mean nothing. Teams are chosed to Bowl games, Playoff games because of their wins, not stats. And I'm not talking about small Bowl games. You have to have a unblimished record to automaticlly be Championship Bowl game elligable. Or, if a game is lost pray that there is no undefeated teams out there.
Stats are misleading. SC had higher stats than UT, but lost the game. I'll bet anything they'd trade the stats for a the win. Stats are only interesting number used to boast individual acomplishments.
In any sport final outcome is all that matters.
Stats are misleading somtimes.
A team can go up and down a field the whole game and never score a point.Duckman said:
posted on January 11, 2006 5:18 AM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Docmje,
Your post is purely opinion and is not worth any real response.
Hookem Horns,
Your post is not a whole lot better but I have nothing better to do so I will respond. The first thing that I noticed about your post is that almost every line is unsupported.
You state “SC had higher stats than UT, but lost the game”. You should have done some research on that one before you posted it. Texas average points scored per game was 50.9 compared to USC who avg. 50 points per game. Texas avg. points gave up per game was 14 points per game while USC gave up an average of 21 points per game. The only stat that indicated that USC had any advantage was avg. yards gained per game. USC avg. 72 more yards per game then Texas (508 to 580). These stats would suggest that it would be a very close game and it was. Now that it has been shown that you were wrong about that lets move on to some of your other statements.
“ Teams are chosed to Bowl games, Playoff games because of their wins, not stats.” You are wrong. Once again you should have done some research. Most teams that are chosen to play in bowl games have great stats. The two often go hand in hand, but if you want to judge the average performance of a team you must look at yard lost and yards gained. You should also look at who they gave up and lost those yards to. The score dose not take into account field position and turnovers. I stated this before and did not try to discredit this statement in any way. Why not?
“Stats are misleading”. you support this statement by saying “ A team can go up and down a field the whole game and never score a point”. It is the only sported statements in your post. Problem is that a team that moves the ball up and down the field while playing will most often score points. Even if they don’t win that game they will win others if they can average more yards gained then yards given up. Name some teams with winning records that gave up more yards on average then they gained. If you cant do this then you must admit that I am correct.
P.S. GO DUCKS!!!CW said:
posted on January 13, 2006 4:12 PM — 66.226.60.98 — link — abuse?
Once again ... I laugh! To hear anyone boasting of beating BYWHO and the Mighty Mallards at Oregon or even Northeastern. I will admit I was shocked at Georgia who no doubt will be the laughing joke of the SEC. True if there was another minute added to the game ... GA would've won. Nevertheless they deserved the loss! You could tell they were not prepared! Probably because it was WVA. All this said... the real NCAA championship game was ALA and Miami. Neither the trojans (that west coast USC team) nor Texas could've handled the Bama defense. Several have said that the bowls revealed equality of the conferences. Let's see... VT nearly got stomped by the Cardnials of where?? Ga showed they were the dominant team! Gamecocks in their first bowl with a new team & coach has made most of sit up and say "If this is what happens in one year... wait till next season!" Penn showed they were overrated from beating barely a team that didn't have an offensive line / hurt recievers and a freshman quarterback!! That was stomped by Florida (SEC). Will there ever be a play off system in the BCS?? No! Because all consistent wins will be from east of the Mississippi and South of the Mason-Dixon! The money will not tolerate seeing decades pass before a Notre Dame / Trojan / Nebraska / Michigan etc..team win championship! Colleges such as Oregan / BY WHO / Fresno / USC trojan / Northeastern will dissappear from public knowledge.
Mike - Texas Grad said:
posted on January 15, 2006 12:02 PM — 66.245.121.44 — link — abuse?
I don't think it is easy to tell which conference is strongest. The only real test in football is head to head matchups and a playoff system. Since we don't have a play off all we can do is try and break down the stats.
Here are a couple of different ways to look at the conferennce records.
Conference Records against other BCS conferences (and Notre Dame - even though thier best win was against Michigan)
1st - Big 12 4-2 (and BCS Champion)
2nd - ACC 4-2 (top two teams lost)
3rd - SEC 3-3 (played all BCS conf. schools)
4th - PAC 10 2-2 (top two teams lost)
5th - Big 10 3-4
6th - Big E 1-3Just looking at the top 3 teams in each conference by conference record.
1st - Big 10 3-0 (PSU, OSU, WIS)
2nd - Big 12 2-1 (UT, TT, OU)
3rd - Big E 1-2 (WVU, LOU, RUT)
4th - SEC 1-2 (UG, LSU, AUB, top team lost)
5th - PAC 10 1-2 (USC, ORE, UCLA, top 2 lost)
5th - ACC 1-2 (FSU, MIA, VT, top 2 lost)Bottom line is you can cut the stats in many ways and get a different answer each time, but if the BCS conferences are indeed the strongest, then the first ranking only counts the BCS conference head to head matchups. The second ranking is only the best of the best from the BCS conferences.
CW said:
posted on January 16, 2006 12:08 PM — 66.44.248.109 — link — abuse?
Duckman,
What a bunch of quack! Texas Tech averaged what 40 to 50 points per game?? But Alabama kicked their offense so hard the stench was falling over Oregon. Alabama came close to going into overtime because of one uncharacteristic play. Anyway, the teams on paper were not evenly matched. As always, Alabama critics accuse them of having two defensive teams... one happens to have a Quaterback. Mike Shula has stated that he will turn this around ... some. However, Alabama will remain a running team with a defense that turns teams such as the mallards into table meat. That's why the BCS system is a crock!! If a play-off system ever happened (and it will not) western "undefeated" teams like USC / Nebraska etc. will never win the National Championship... there goes "bowl money." Since you seem to quote statistics... since 1991 the SEC has produced most of the 1st round picks each of the years except 4! Add Miami and FSU and it really become silly to even mention a team such as the mallards. I saw the snot beaten out of them in recent years by Wake Forest!! A number of sport fans that ive talked with wonder "why dont we let current NFL starters rank the teams?? They are the players that actually make it to the big screen?? The SEC with the addition of Miami & FSU would be the top 12! Put the USC tojans (most of us know USC as the Gamecocks) into the south for a few years and they may learn how to actually play real football. The mallards however... I dont know where to start... when they cam overcome WFU (something Nebraska barely managed this past year) we will talk.The Mayor said:
posted on January 17, 2006 2:02 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
CW,
The SEC has a proud heritage, but the rantings like yours are getting tiresome.
Last time I looked, College Football was a team sport. Who cares who has the most NFL #1 draftees? It has nothing to do with rating how a college team actually performed in their past season.
Statistics can be manipulated by any blogger to prove their case for this argument.
On the West Coast, we repsect your defensive strength as a conference but your games are a bore to watch by our standards. This doesn't mean we're better or worse, we are just different.
I don't understand the obsession with crowning a National Champion through a playoff system anyway. I enjoy the bowl games and I bet there are 28 other teams out there that were happy to win their bowl game, something that a playoff would not provide.
Leave the playoffs to the NFL. As far as I am concerned the true football season ended January 4th with a lot of great bowl games played throughout December and the first week of January.
Big 12 Analyst said:
posted on January 17, 2006 5:17 PM — 130.76.64.15 — link — abuse?
Duckman
On another note and I'm guilty of it myself at times. When comparing average yards or average points with what happened in bowl games you get a very flawed result. In several posts it's noted that so and so was held to a much smaller average yards or point total in the bowl game then their season average therefore the pac 10 plays just as good defense as everyone else. The problem is that average yards are compiled against regular season competition, not high ranked bowl teams. For example yes, oregon held OU to lower then their average on points, but OU's point average also took into account Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M, etc. Oregon was supposed to be a top 10 team. I would expect a top 10 team to hold OU to a lower average then what they are accustomed to in regular play. However that doesn't prove they do or do not play good defense.....sorry this post is a little disorganized, busy at work.
p.s. I look forward to traveling to Oregon next season for the game, I hear it's a fun place to watchCW said:
posted on January 18, 2006 4:43 PM — 66.226.49.164 — link — abuse?
Mayor,
Well it matters when a team like LSU 2yrs back ... won the national title. Then, awoke to find they were going to share the title with a west coast team that played second rate teams all year! The men on rosters in the SEC, FSU etc. Find it outrageous to share history with west coast somethings. LSU wanted another game against the trojans... so did Gateway Computers! Did it happen?? Of course not! This seems to happen over and over! SEC teams may loose 5 games & be out of the bowl picture. Then watch teams such as Oregon, Northwestern, Fresno etc. with less losses play a BCS bowl against another similar team... neither of which could handle playing 2 SEC teams! No play off opportunity! Using the NFL for example! How many teams have won the Superbowl with more than 1 regular season loss... how many with 2... how many with 3... how many with 4 or 5! That's why we should let the players that actually become qualified (NFL starters) help rate the NCAA teams! Yes it becomes tiresome! That's why players such as Warren Sap took the issue into the pro's and enjoyed pounding Pac players that somehow made it into the NFL into the ground.The Mayor said:
posted on January 19, 2006 12:17 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
CW,
I feel your pain, don't forget that the Ducks (of the Pac-10) got jobbed in the 2001 Bowl Season as well and did not get to play Miami for the National Championship. Nebraska played them instead (they didn't even win their conference) and performed poorly.
Stuff happens, try to get over it. Channel that bitter disappointment into something more productive.
I am hopeful that Oregon and other Pac-10 schools will get some home/home games with the SEC (we have Tennessee in 2010 and 2013) and ACC rather than serving up the usual early season patsies.
Hopefully LSU will quit playing the likes of North Texas and Appalachian State as well. I see that you got Wyoming at home in 2010, which the Pac-10 teams always get grief for putting them on their schedule.
LSU recently played OSU in 2004 and escaped with a one point win only because the Beavers kicker was DOA that day. Where's your away game in Corvallis by the way, I don't see it on any of your future schedules?
LSU overcame remarkable adversity and beat ASU in Tempe this year, but it wasn't a blowout by any means and the game could have gone the other way.
Again, we can both dig up statistics that support our postions on conference strength. I see LSU as a major player for the NC again next year (8 home games, how did they pull that off!?). Hopefully you'll get your chance and your due.
As the LSU website says 226 days to kickoff! Until then, move on, get over it.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on January 19, 2006 9:18 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Here's the flat out truth on the SEC. They haven't had one single dominate program since Bear Bryant left Alabama about a century ago. You have no teams anywhere near as good as Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan or USC - year in and year out. Even UCLA won something ridiculous like eleven Bowl Games in a row under Terry Donahue. And, most of those teams came out of the Pac-10 at 9-2 or 8-3 and would kill any other team. We have had great Washington teams. Any team that finished 1st in the Pac-10 would kill any team that finished 1st in the SEC - period. You crackers are a joke! Your teams have never done anything to warrant your bold and brazen talk about how good you think you are. It's too bad that the Trojans can't get your teams on our schedule so we can teach you all a lesson. And, by the way, Texas would have also destroyed every single team in your pathetic little league in 2005. So would Ohio State and probably Penn State. You want to talk trash? Put us on the schedule. But, put our best teams on the schedule - not our worst ones. The only teams that you have that got the cajones to try and play with the "Big Boyz" are your lower echelon teams like Arkansas. You claim a "Big Win" over Arizona State. Come on! Our 5th best team which had numerous injuries. USC beat the crap out of Auburn twice in a row and Auburn don't want no more. Hey, we just lost our whole starting backfield to the top five spots in the draft. Let's see if we lose even two games let alone three? And, Wisconsin just killed Auburn - it wasn't even a game. Wisconsin? Doesn't Fresno routinely kick the snot out of them? All you inbred hillbillies down south are nothing short of more ignorant than a box of rocks.
Tommie Trojan
CW said:
posted on January 20, 2006 3:47 PM — 66.44.249.160 — link — abuse?
Tommie trojan,
We don't even rank Arizona who? I've never heard any sports figure in the Southeast consider them a real team! Just like most of my life USC was only the Gamecocks? I've never seen Arizona on TV?? I don't think the networks know who they are. It was ESPN that stated they (ASU)were the only team on the TROJANS schedule that was a threat! Your direction is extremely flawed! We have tried to get y'all on our schedule! For whatever reason you whimps chicken out! LSU & Gateway computers tried to bring USC and LSU together but you & the NCAA said no! You need to call your colleges and pressure them into playing us. It won't happen because your "so called glory days" will never occur again... BCS money wouldn't tollerate seeing the pretty boys of california carried off the field after meeting the SEC defense. Thank goodness you only had to play one team all year... Texas. Because I don't think the trojans could beat the real ASU - Appalachian State University. Who in the world is Arizona State??? Are they the bucking parrie dogs?? Oh yes... I do give some exception to the state that gave us the Lombardi Trophy. Calhoun will be a star in the NFL... here in the SEC we have often referred to Auburn as the Paper Tigers of the SC. Anyway, let me know if you have any luck persuading your colleges to play us! If you do gain some kind of luck I hope your players don't break a finger nail or get a run in their hose.So Cal Clippers said:
posted on March 23, 2006 6:00 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
People are just... mis-guided, sometimes.
Bowl results are only a fraction of the picture (inter-conference matchups). As ambiguous an issue it may be, Conference Comparisons/Rankings are not decided by mere "Bowl" results. Ya gotta look at the inter-conf results of the entire season & entire conference (get it? "conference" meaning top-to-bottom). Here's the 2005 Conference Rankings solely based on Winning Percentage:1 Team XII: 36-8 (85.7%)
2 Team BTEN: 31-10 (75.6%)
3 Team ACC: 32-12 (72.7%)
4 Team PAC: 26-10 (72.2%)
5 Team SEC: 30-12 (71.4%)... but as we know with individual teams, the "raw" Record isnt accurate on its own, ei, 11-1 TCU's record is better than 10-2 Ohio State, but Ohio State is Rated/Ranked higher. Strength of Schedule plays a factor. The Computer Ratings account for that; base on the combined 4 Computer Ratings that provide "Conference" rankings as well, the 2005 Conference Rankings are:
1 BTEN
2 XII
3 ACC
4 PAC
5 SECThe XII face a significantly Weaker SOS than the other 5 Major conferences. Probably the most 'telling' reason for this was that they collectively faced the Highest percentage of opponents Rated in the Bottom 30 (of 119 teams) and/or opponents from Non-Divison 1A; which was 19 of their 44 OOC opponents.
(a bit less reliable a figure, but... the XII also faced the Lowest percentage of "Bowl-team" opponents; 15 of 44).
- As reference: Big TEN, only 9 of their 41 OOC opponents were Bottom 30/non-D1A... ACC, 24 of their 44 OOC opponents were "Bowl-teams"...
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
PMac said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:11 AM — 71.35.126.199 — link — abuse?Any word on the Pac-10 bowl affiliations for next year now that the Insight Bowl is going to pit a Big 12 team against a Big 10 team?