February 27, 2006
Spring Practice Schedules
The boys at Rivals.com have compiled the spring football practice and spring game schedules for just about everybody in DI-A.
ACC Spring Practices
SEC Spring Practices
Pac-10 Spring Practices
Big Ten Spring Practices
Big 12 Spring Practices
Big East Spring Practices
Independent Spring Practices
CUSA Spring Practices
MAC Spring Practices
MWC Spring Practices
WAC Spring Practices
Sun Belt Spring Practices
While several schools are already going full tilt (Alabama, Auburn, UCLA, and Texas - among the notables), most schools won't start college football spring practice until March.
Comments:
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on February 28, 2006 12:58 AM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Some fun facts for all to enjoy:
While I was looking over the Scout.com Rating systems for the last five years, which place the SEC #1 in Total Recruiting Points over the last five years, I could not help but notice some interesting facts.
1.) Average recruits per year per team: SEC 24.45, Big-12 22.87, Pac-10 22.50, Big East 21.97, ACC 21.73 and Big-10 21.51.
Now, this must mean that the SEC either graduates more players to the NFL early or that more players can't cut it in class. It's probably a combination of the two, and likewise, it would all be opposite of that for the Big-10 schools.
2.) Average Star Rating per player: SEC 2.86, Big-12 2.78, Pac-10 2.78, ACC 2.74, Big-10 2.58 and Big East 2.35.
Clearly, the Average Star Rating favors the players who play in the SEC. Now, it gets a little more interesting, as points are awarded for "Higher Impact Players".
3.) Average Total Points per Player: Pac-10 5.13, ACC 5.11, SEC 4.66, Big East 4.30, Big-10 4.17 and Big-12 4.08.
This is very strange. That the scouting service that would rate the SEC as the overall points leader - would also show that the most "Impact Players" would probably reside in the Pac-10. I can't even beleive what I am seeing here. Taking this one step further you could add the "Average Total Points" together with the "Average Stars per Player", divide that by two, and probably be able to determine who might actually have the best players. Let's try that.
4.) Combined "Average Stars" plus "Average Total Points" divided by two: Pac-10 3.96, ACC 3.92, SEC 3.76, Big-12 3.43, Big-10 3.38 and Big East 3.32.
Wow! This has got to be impossible! There is no way that the best players coming out of high school are entering the Pac-10. Clearly, Scout.com has made some serious errors in the way that they rate the players. Or, maybe it's just that all of the really good players play at USC and all of the other Pac-10 teams really are horrible. Which one shall it be? Can one team really stockpile that much talent to make that much of a difference in a ratings systems such as "Scouts"?
One sidenote: the statistics between the ACC would be somewhat miscued, of course, as several good teams have left the Big East for the ACC in recent years. The argument could be made that the ACC has been recruiting the best players over the last five years - and, you would get no argument out of me.
Tommie Trojan
Notre Dame Fan 444 said:
posted on February 28, 2006 1:31 PM — 199.208.239.141 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan -
I think you are on the money with the number of recruits the SEC has vs. Impact players. However, you have to agree that the Big 12 and Big Ten, produce the majority of offensive lineman. Good article.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on February 28, 2006 3:47 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Oh, silly me!
I forgot that all of the best coaches coach in the SEC. That renders all recruiting analysis meaningless. Everybody already knows that SEC coaches can take a 2-star player and make him into a "future Pro-Bowl player" - while Pac-10 coaches can never get a 5-star player to perform worth a darn. Heck, all you've gotta do is look at Whitney Lewis, a 5-star player (#2 in the country) who went to USC, and could not beat out Mike Williams (3-star), Keary Colbert, Steve Smith (4-star) or Dwayne Jarrett (4-star) for a starting job. This obviously proves that Lewis is not any good at all - and that the coaching staffs in the Pac-10 cannot develope talent. Heck, Lewis is probably even gonna get beat out by Patrick Turner (5-star) and Vidal Hazelton (5-star) before all is said and done (more proof that Lewis wasn't any good at all)!
Fearless prediction: Whitney Lewis, no matter if he plays or not, will get drafted into the NFL and have a long illustrious career.
Tommie Trojan
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on February 28, 2006 5:39 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
I'm pretty good at computing data, as that's one of the many things that I have to do during the course of the day, but I could be a little weak in what it all really means. Check it out and see for yourself, and then give me the skinny on what your spin is, and how the PAC-10 is a weakazz conference no matter what. And, don't tell me that y'all caint count downsouth - as I'm sure that y'all know exactly how much viddles mama is preparing for supper.
Tommie Trojan
Bleed Crimson said:
posted on March 2, 2006 1:18 AM — 72.146.23.211 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
You were right on the money when you said that the SEC can develop talent. Looking back at Alabama's last season, they did all of that with just about every recruiting class on the team ranked somewhere below 20. If this same coaching can continue to deliver top 10 recruiting classes to the capstone, I believe Alabama will once again be a force to be reckoned with. Mike Shula is an extremely gifted coach and there is no doubt in my mind that he will deliver Alabama their 13th national championship before 2010. Mark it down.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on March 2, 2006 2:23 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
ND444:
No doubt there are some serious corn fed farmboyz out in the midwest! One of the disadvantages that we have out here is that you can't just walk out your back door and slaughter a steer or hog for dinner. They got some silly zoning regulations against things like that. Besides, what would the neighbors think? Anyway, it probably cost us as much for one rib-eye at the grocery store as it cost for a whole side of beef out in the midwest.
No, we got some real fast people out here though. They live fast, drive fast, shop fast and even die fast. They get their "speed" from runnin' from the law, the IRS and their old ladies who are either whacked out on meth or tryin' to collect on child support. No, we got some ellusive mofo's out here. They are hard to catch and make for tremendous wideouts and running backs.Tommie Trojan
So Cal Clipprs said:
posted on March 4, 2006 5:51 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
College Football is king. "F" the NFL.
Im with Regan on that, around this time of year you gotta "dig" to find something to get exicted about in CFB.
NBA? some interest, but waiting for the playoffs
NCAA hoops? certian seasons now & then
MLB, spring Baseball? not at allHere's me, digging...
The Best & Worst looking College Football Unies:
119 - Wyoming (the ugliest color - Sh*#-brown?!)
118 - Georgia Tech (Puke-yellow)
117 - Oregon St (Halloween orange & black plus a big ugly Beaver on the helmet)
116 - Tennessee (Pinkish-orange?!)
115 - East Carolina (only the Lakers can make Purple & Gold look good)... dubious decision: Oregon? Miami?
5 - Oregon (so distinctive that they go "beyond ugly" and actually look pretty cool)
4 - Notre Dame (classic)
3 - Texas (the all white ones)
2 - USC (the cardinal ones)
1 - Auburn (the blue ones - aesthetically
the best lookin, just something about em)----------------------------
Helmets:
119 - La Tech (a big "T" stamped over an outline of the State? it gets minus-points for screwing up the colors "red, white & blue" so bad)
118 - Vandy (a "V" in a Star... lame)
117 - Ball State (ugliest of all Bird-on-a-helmet Helmets)
116 - Arizona State (the Sun Devil aint THAT bad but, cross-walk-sign Yellow? and an ugly stripe down the middle? just asking for it)
115 - Conference-USA all together (Marshall, UAB, E Carolina; three way tie)... dubious desision: Florida St (the arrowhead spear), kinda bad-ass but kinda tacky
5 - Texas (distinctive 'longhorns' symbol)
4 - Alabama (simple but solid)
3 - Michigan (surprisingly not #1, granted its a universally recognizable symbol of College Football, but choosing it #1 is sortofa cop-out... another thing, "maize"?)
2 - Colorado St (the Rams horns, nice... dont know about the green though)
1 - Cal Berkeley (cool deep-Blue, with the contrasting lettering "Cal", just an overall sleek-lookin helmet)-------------------------
Nicknames:
119 - The Maryland Terrapins (even the "Turtles" woulda been better)
118 - The OSU Buckeyes (the what?)
117 - The Vandy Commadores (why not the "Temptations")
116 - The VTech Hokies (all-n-all, a strange nickname)
115 - The WF Deamon Deacons (adding "Demon" doesnt make "Deacons" any better)... dubious decision: I cant decide... The Idaho Vandals, The Bama Crimson Tide, The TCU Horned Frogs, The Fighting Irish, The UNLV *Runnin Rebels (borrowing from *basketball team), The Miami Hurricane, The UNC Tar Heels, Mid Tenn St/Texas Tech Blue & Red Raiders, The FSU Seminoles, USC Trojans, Michigan St Spartans, The Penn St Nittany Lions, BYU Cougars
The Marshall Thundering HerdNicknames:
TrojanBeast said:
posted on March 6, 2006 7:50 PM — 66.151.60.14 — link — abuse?
Hey Tommie T:
I'm not 100% sure but I think the reason Whitney Lewis hasn't played is because of some eligibility issues. Or is that Chauncey Washington? Either way, I don't think it was because Whitney Lewis is "not good at all" That's kinda taking it a little too far wouldn't you agree? You can't really say that he's not good at all until he actually gets a chance to play in a real game. In fact, he totally impressed in last year's scrimmage. Anywho, let's hold off on the verdict until he plays a complete season. By the way, I would also hold off on any Patrick Turner and Vidal Hazelton predictions until 2006 is over. How does the saying go, "the taste of the pudding is in the eating" Given Turner's recruiting rank last year, he didn't really show me much this past season. He came in with as much hype as Mike Williams and Dwayne Jarrett (if not more), and you MUST agree with me that he's been no match to these two guys in terms of performance. At least the stats seem to think so.Tommie Trojan said:
posted on March 7, 2006 2:49 AM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Myth Busters:
Using the Five Top Conferences: SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East and Pac 10 - some myths will be broken here. Criteria = 2000 thru 2005.
Florida State was 40-8 in the ACC. Against the other four top conferences the record was 9-12.
Miami(Fla.) was 44-6 playing in the ACC and Big East. Against the other three top conferences they were 9-4 icluding 1-1 against the Pac-10.
Florida was 35-14 playing in the SEC. Against the other four confereces only 5-9.
Auburn was 37-13 playing in the SEC. Against all others: 4-8 and 0-2 against the Pac-10.
Alabama was only 2-5 against the other four conferences and 0-2 against the Pac-10.
Tennessee was 33-17 in the SEC while only 6-4 against the other top conferences.
LSU was 37-14 in the SEC and a respectable 7-3 against all other conferences including 3-0 against the Pac-10.
Georgia was 37-14 in the SEC and an impressive 11-3 against the other four top conferences.
So, Florida State and Miami are a combined 18-16 in OCC games against the other top confereces while the SEC's top six teams are a combined 35-32. Not exactly earthshaking records. And, if we added the bottom feeders records it would be pathetic.
Now, If you took the top seven Pac-10 teams in conference USC 37-11, Oregon 33-15, Oregon State 26-22, UCLA 25-23, Washington State 25-23, California 22-26 and Washington 22-26 and looked at their records outside of conference you would see something different. USC is 10-3, UCLA 10-5, Oregon 6-6, California 6-4, Washington 5-5, Washington State 3-3 and Oregon State is 1-3. The combined out of conference record is 41-29 against the other top four conferences. And rather than having five teams with better than 33-17 in conference records, like the SEC has, the Pac-10 can only have two teams approaching this number. Why is that? It is a much harder conference to win in. Period. End of story. Arizona State is 20-28 in the Pac-10 for crying out loud, yet, 6-6 against the other four top confereces. Stanford is 19-29 and 2-2 against the other conferences.
Oh, don't want to forget Virginia Tech: 38-16 in the ACC and Big East, yet only 3-3 against the other four conferences, and 0-2 against the Pac-10.
I'm sorry, other than Georgia, LSU and Miami - I'm not seeing too much proof of this overwhelming dynasty of football that lives down south.
Tommie Trojan
Matthew Baker said:
posted on March 14, 2006 10:53 PM — 203.149.12.243 — link — abuse?
Your website is wonderfull. I'll come visit again. Kill Stake is very good Circle: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ , when Cards Roll Girl Fetch when Girl Create Circle Hedge , Loose Make Destroy - that is all that Opponents is capable of when Pair Give Slot Double
Defensive Minded Nebraskan said:
posted on March 16, 2006 5:12 PM — 63.245.175.208 — link — abuse?
One thing to note about how tough confrences are... everyone seems to agree that the big 12 is no higher than 3rd, its odd to me that all big 12 teams worth anything won last year... all the underdogs too. seems fair though, SEC only recruits 5star RB's WRs and QB's; same with the pac-10... except they like CB's too. the big 12 my not put up the stats like some other confrences... but then again, i think the big 12 has the best defenses (ask pete carrol) and just to brush on that subject.. the big 12 recruits more 3-4 star prospects over 10-15 5 star prospects... but what is a star when your playing a game, it doesn't say anything about the potential of the player or the will... it says how tall and fast they are, people are so caught up in numbers these days that they forget about TEAM skill and desire. And what happened to Dan Alaxander... he ran one play in the NFL, Knocked one guy to the dirt, got one touchdown... and then disappeared, wtf... do the coaches know what they are doing? oh thats right they know what they are doing... Dan mustn't have been pretty enough to carry a ball in the league :/
Roll tide said:
posted on March 18, 2006 6:44 PM — 69.244.3.186 — link — abuse?
Trojan fans, I am glad the last couple of years has been good to you but that doesn't make the pac-10 better than the SEC. Numbers don't count injured players from having to play vicious SEC defenses week in week out from top to bottom. The Texas Longhorns out-defensed USC in the game when it counted. Offense against oregon State or Fresno isn't as impressive as holding teams under ten points every game. Defense is the reason most of those that know anything about the game choose the SEC as the top conference. Most of those victories that you guys are bragging about are the pac 10's best team of a given year against the mid level or worse of the same year in the SEC.
Duckman said:
posted on March 20, 2006 6:10 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Roll Tide,
Know one is trying to say the PAC-10 is better then anyone else. We were just tired of a few SEC fans talking a whole lot trash about how dominant football is in the SEC and how weak it is in the PAC-10. After looking at ALL the evidence it is pretty obvious that is not the case. We were not trying to degrade the SEC in any way. As for your accusation that the SEC plays great defense, They play great defense against teams in their own conference and average defense when playing OOC. They rarely did any better (in yards lost, yards gained and points scored) then a decent team should have done when playing OOC.
Once again I would like to point out that we are not trying to degrade or put down the SEC in any way. We are just trying to talk some reason and logic into some illogical SEC fans who love to talk trash about something they know little about. The good news is that we all agree that we love football!!!
Question; How are we all so passionate about something that dose not affect anything but our pride?
Question; Why do we take so much pride in something we have no control over?
We are all very sick people!! hahaha!!
P.S.GO DUCKS!!!
Bobby McClure said:
posted on March 22, 2006 4:11 PM — 169.241.10.81 — link — abuse?
Coach Stoops, My name is Bobby McClure. I was asked to coach the recievers next season at a local high-schools here in Las Vegas, NV. I have watched your recievers such as Mark Clayton over the last couple of years, and it is apparent that your recievers coach does an outstanding job with your recievers, and I was wondering if he were to get a moment or two would he mind sending ( through e-mail)me some drills for the X and Z positions.
Respectfully,
Bobby McClure
nuggytbok said:
posted on March 25, 2006 12:29 AM — 138.88.130.36 — link — abuse?
I wonder if there is some deep seeded reason for Tommy Trojan's constant effort to discount the SEC. Maybe he feels pressured to defend the the PAC-10 because the Trojans are the only ones doing their share of the work. Maybe it's the same as when "that guy you know" is always telling you what he has because he is insecure. Or perhaps, and this my favorite, maybe it's like when a guy with, ummm...shall we say smallish organs drives a Ferrari to make up for his deficit. Just a thought.
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on March 28, 2006 6:33 PM — 204.62.104.209 — link — abuse?
Nuggybok, The SEC had the WORST Winning Percentage this year among the 5 major conferenece... and beyond that, they were also Rated the 5th... they were Rated 4th the year before that...
Yet the SECers still "think" theyre a dominant conference. SEC, youre NOT the "New York Yankees" of College Football Conferences.
Even in a historical perspective, in terms of Winning National Titles, on a team-for-team basis, using teams' current conference affiliations, the SEC is BEHIND...
1 Big TEN (2.63) 29 Titles, 11-team Conf
2 PAC (1.7) 17 Titles, 10-team Conf
3 XII (1.58) 19 Titles, 12-team Conf
4 SEC (1.5) 18 Titles, 12-team Conf
5 ACC (1.08) 13 Titles, 12-team Conf
... please look into it if you dont believe me - using the widely recognized Championship selection orginizations: AP, Coaches/BCS, Dickinson, Helms, CFRA, NCFSo what's that say about SECers and all of their unfounded Self-Hyping, general pompous attitude, SECentric mentality, Nuggy?
Gerald said:
posted on March 29, 2006 10:42 AM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
"Even in a historical perspective, in terms of Winning National Titles, on a team-for-team basis, using teams' current conference affiliations ..."
Wow, great job pretending that Georgia Tech and Miami were actually in the ACC when they won their national titles. With the exception of Georgia Tech's 1990 national title (when the highest ranked team that they played was #21 Nebraska in the GATOR BOWL) THEY WEREN'T! And great job pretending that Penn State was actually in the Big 10 when they won their national titles. THEY WEREN'T! (Although it was not Penn State's fault that they did not share the 1994 title just as it was not Ohio State's fault that they did not share the 1997 title; blame the same media that screwed over Auburn). Penn State, Miami, and (save 1990) Georgia Tech WERE NOT in their current conferences when they won their titles, so their titles have NOTHING TO DO with those conferences' traditions! Geesh.
Incidentally, of the PAC - 10's 17 titles, how many were won by USC? That is what I thought ...
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on March 29, 2006 8:45 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Gerald, theres no pretending... I Explicitly made the reference "using current conference affiliations"... what's the point in making comparisons between conferences that dont exist (as they once did). The Big XII formed in 1996, they have 10 years of existance. Are SEC, PAC, or BigTEN fans gonna "pretend" that Oklahoma+Texas+Nebraska should Only 'get credit' for winning 3 Titles ? Thats the point?
The guy was questioning Tommy Trojans reasoning behind his Raz-ing of the SEC... both You and Nuggy both suggested that the PAC conference is only about USC... [see breakdown below] ... so what's the big deal?
PAC - 5 of 10 teams (half the conf) have won a *Title*
USC 11
Cal 3
Washington 1
FUCLA 1
Stanford 1SEC - 6 of 12 teams (half the conf) have won a *Title*
Bama 10
LSU 3
Tenn 2
Florida 1
Geo 1
Auburn 1* If you include the National Titles awarded by Helms, NCF, CFRA that happened after the AP Poll began (1936), then Mississippi, Arkansas, Arizona State each pick up a Title - along with a few others; PAC teams would total 24 (2.4) the SEC teams would total 26 (2.17).
nuggytbok said:
posted on March 29, 2006 9:17 PM — 138.88.147.127 — link — abuse?
Wow, So Cal Clipper sounds angry. That's sad, football is supposed to make people happy. Do Southern Californians spend all of their time crunching numbers and coming up with oddball stats to avoid traffic, smog, earthquakes and riots. Maybe it's best to only travel to SC football games and then head back to the PC to find ways to show up the SEC.
I guess all I can say is, if you didn't grow up in the south you'll never understand why we take pride in things like college football. While schools like USC, Notre Dame, and Michigan are rich in football tradition and championships, it doesn't come close to the passion we feel for southern things like football and home cookin'. If you have ever had the rest of the country constantly belittle you as hicks or racists then maybe you would be as proud and as outspoken as we are about things like this. When we do things well, like play football, we let it define us. Rightly or wrongly, we are damn proud of it. And it is for that reason the SEC is the greatest conference in the country.
Gerald said:
posted on March 30, 2006 12:53 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
So Cal Clips:
Dude, Washington was legitimate during the Don James era. But UCLA's national title came in 1954. When did STANFORD AND CAL win national titles, huh? When? We both know that since the 1960s, the PAC - 10 has been USC and a bunch of teams that really are no better than Fresno. Meanwhile, since 1990 ALONE, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and LSU have won national titles, and then you had Auburn in 2004.
This is what it comes down to, my man. In the SEC, it happens occasionally, not as often as we SEC fans like to pretend BUT IT DOES HAPPEN that an SEC team that would have played for a national title and probably won a national title lost to another highly ranked SEC team. But how often does that happen in the PAC - 10 REALLY? USC lost to Cal, I grant you, but got the AP title anyway. A couple of 11 - 1 PAC - 10 teams knocked each other off the year that Ricky Neuheisel won the Rose Bowl, sure. But when else? Don't talk to me about Oregon, losers at home to the same Stanford team that later lost a bowl game at home to 7 win Georgia Tech and to this day still pretends that beating the same 3 loss Colorado team that lost to Colorado State and got blown out by Texas was some accomplishment. How often do PAC - 10 teams knock each other out of the national title hunt?
For that matter, often are ANY PAC - 10 teams even in the national title hunt past October? Take away USC from 2002 - 2005 the answer is NONE, and USC never had to beat a legitimate top 5 team (I think that Oregon, UCLA, and Cal proved their lack of legitimacy) to do it like SEC teams generally (but not always) do. LSU had to beat 11 win UGA TWICE in order to get to the national title game. Meanwhile, USC didn't even play a team that won 11 games in 2003; the closest that they came was 10 win Michigan in the bowl game (no 10 win teams in the regular season).
But I take nothing away from USC. They played the games on their schedule, a major college schedule with good nonconference opposition, and beat all comers save Kansas State, Washington State, Cal, and Texas from 2002 to 2005. I have no problem with saying that it might have happened had they played in the SEC. It could have! I don't think that it would have, but it might. But if you ask me, that makes what SEC teams do MORE IMPRESSIVE ... they are able to get through the SEC undefeated with lesser teams than this USC bunch. Take Florida in 1996. Did they have Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Dwayne Jarrett, Steve Smith, and Dominique Byrd, and at least 3 first round draft picks on their offensive line? Of course not. Neither did Tennessee in 1997, Alabama in 1992, or LSU in 2003. The closest was Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, and Carnell Williams in 2004. SEC teams not only get it done more often, but they get it done with less than it took Miami, FSU, USC, and Texas to get it done with; those semi - pro teams. Geesh, Miami had 5 #1 draft picks and STILL lost at home to a Tennessee team that didn't have anywhere near that talent in 2003. I still say that the Nebraska team of 1992 - 1997 (4 national title games in 5 years with 3 wins all in undefeated and untied seasons and had to beat Warren Sapp and Ray Lewis at Miami, a Florida team that won the title the next year, and Peyton Manning's Tennessee in bowl games) takes a back seat to no one, including this USC team. But apart from that Nebraska team and this USC team, the SEC is the best. Or, at least SEC fans think so, and SEC fans have a lot of wins, national titles, bowl victories, and great NFL players SPREAD OUT AMONG THE SEC PROGRAMS.
Consider this, So Cal Clips. Kentucky and Ole Miss, two SEC doormats, produced the #1 overall pick in the draft AT QUARTERBACK. Now they are talking about taking Jay Cutler in the top 10 and he went 11 - 34 in the SEC. Dude, that just doesn't happen in other leagues and you know it!
I will grant you that the gap between the leagues is small. But as long as there is a gap there, SEC fans are going to grab onto it and holler about it! If you PAC - 10 fans want to stop our hollering, fine. Will SOMEONE from among Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State PLEASE win a national title! It's been 15 years! Take away Washington in 1991, and it's been 40 years! FORTY YEARS! Please, PAC - 10 fans, shut us up! SOMEONE outside of USC step up and win a title! Quit talking about how you ALMOST beat LSU in years when LSU wasn't even the conference champion, or how you beat 9 - 4 and 8 - 5 Auburn! PLEASE! I gotta tell you, if some PAC - 10 team OTHER THAN USC rises up and becomes a consistently good football program, then I will root for them, because like all true SEC fans I like good football, and that is more good football to watch. Yeah I rooted for Nebraska in the 90s. They were a great team. Fun to watch. Just like I rooted for Texas these past couple of years, and used to love Clemson under Danny Ford back in the day. I like Ohio State under Tressel too. I used to like Oklahoma until Bob Stoops flip - flopped from being a playoff supporter to a BCS supporter when it benefitted his own team. And you know what? I don't even hate USC! It is the MEDIA that I hate. I like good football. How can ANYONE who likes good football hate Carroll, Leinart, White, and Bush? I just want more good football on the west coast than from USC. Period.
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on March 30, 2006 9:20 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Nuggy, how do you get "anger" from that post?
... I gotta think its from the same place you got "pretending" from the previous post (#19)..... the place known as "Delusion".See me re-directing the issue back to FOOTBALL... See YOU taking it back to making it a personal thing
Seriously, how about responding to the content - knocking Southern Californians about "crunching numbers"... making reference to riots and smog and traffic !?!? The lame-osity level is so high... I just gotta laugh.
Whats the next step? I ask you where youre from and rag on you? From the South; your IQ is sub-100, you sleep with your cousin, and youre racist. From the Mid-West: your girl is fat or ugly or both, you live on a farm, and your naive. From the Eastern seaboard; your obnoxious, pompously self-centered, and live in a p!ss-stench ghetto.
(PS no "anger" in this post either... respond to the football Nuggy)Duckman said:
posted on March 31, 2006 3:55 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Everyone,
How many times do I have to post this? National championships have nothing to do when comparing conference strength. A national championship is won primarily by playing in your conference. How many SEC or PAC-10 teams won national championships without ever having a SEC vs. PAC-10 match up? Until we have a playoff system a national championship is just a pretty trophy. If it were possible to determine who is the best team with a computer then the NFL would use the same format in picking their champion. it’s a joke of a system for finding out who is the best team.
Gerald,
I see you have given up on trying to prove that the SEC is CURRENTLY better then the PAC-10. That is good because that debate seems to be one-sided when you look at the facts. You have moved onto trying to prove that the SEC WAS dominant is their heyday. I wont disagree with you that before the mid to late ninety’s the SEC WAS dominant. You can prove that without using the SEC’s (what you referred to as) mythical national championships. There is plenty of credible evidence to support that case. I don’t think that to many people would disagree with that fact though.
Nuggy,
I am sorry that college football and home cooker is what defines you. That is the saddest thing I think I have ever herd. Go to one of the fine universities down south, get a degree in something that you a passionate about and then get a life. I love football as much as the next guy but everything has its place. You must get perspective.
P.S. GO DUCKS!!!
nuggytbok said:
posted on March 31, 2006 8:50 PM — 138.88.41.220 — link — abuse?
So Cal and Tommy, let me start by offering an apology. Nothing personal, just banter and I guess it didn't read with the same tone in which I wrote it. Just as the sarcasm didn't come through when I said So Cal "sounded" angry. Any who...the point of the post was you guys spend a lot of time crunching numbers and coming up with stats that support your thoughts on the PAC 10 being top dog, and that's fine, but for a lot of us from the south it's not about what you can put on a spread sheet. If we left it stictly to numbers then there would never be a reason for any SEC fan to argue with an Alabama fan. Every argument or conversation would come down to "12 championships, how many do you have?".
We all apparently love "our" football and think it's as good as it gets. You just may not win a lot people over with numbers when to some it's not about numbers. Again no hard feelings.
Duckman, you missed the point as well. Every group of people gets an identity from somewhere. Southern people do seperate football from other aspects of life, well, maybe not Tennessee fans. Football fans are defined by their teams on Saturdays, NASCAR fans are connected with their drivers on Sundays, Politicians are lumped together when they sit in the Capitol. I wasn't being quite as literal as you took it. And not that it matters, but I did attend one of our fine institutions and got a degree and a decent job. And nothing comes before my wife and daughter.
So I hope all is well with you guys and let's hope in the near future we'll get to see some matchups that will help decide who is better than whom. Personally I think the SEC can hang with anybody.
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on April 1, 2006 5:15 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Nuggy, I dont know about anyone else, but Im not looking for stats that support the "PAC being top dog"... for the most part my posts are about de-bunking Over-Hype (fluffed up hype around the SEC as a "dominant" Conference... and the idea that the PAC is a "mediocre" Conference)
... the "crunching numbers" is only the reflection of what happened ON THE FIELD. None of what I post is made-up or irrelavent data.
- The SEC had the Worst Winning percentage among the 5 major conferences in 2005 (and didnt face a particularly tougher SOS)-
Is that "crunching numbers"?Now that you mention it, Alabama only has 10 Titles, and that IS counting even the 1973 and 1964 Titles (utterly Ridiculous to think those ~Titles~ would stand up today).
USC has 11 Titles.
As per the AP, Coaches/BCS, Dickinson, Helms*Pre-1936, *NCF, *CFRADuckman said:
posted on April 5, 2006 7:32 PM — 66.223.208.241 — link — abuse?
Nuggy,
I also believe the SEC can hang with anyone. The stats put forth throughout this discussion have proven that. I am not trying to say the SEC is weak. I am saying that the SEC is not dominant in any way. The stats also prove that. Some people except it and some people think that they should not have to show their dominance on the field as long as they believe that they are the best. Ignorance must be bliss.
I am very happy to hear that their is more to your life then football. Football is great entertainment but no matter how many times your team loses or wins it will probably never change your life.
P.S.GO DUCKS!!!So Cal Clippers said:
posted on April 6, 2006 3:55 PM — 204.62.107.212 — link — abuse?
Duckman, the computer ratings would help in determining the Seedings in a Playoff system - they are a legit/valuable tool. Theyre also usefull in the "conference rankings" issue.
BTW, my contention wasnt that Conf Rankings were determined by National Titles... only that EVEN in THAT respect, the SEC isnt "Dominant."AZnotforPAC10 said:
posted on April 11, 2006 1:23 PM — 12.102.69.227 — link — abuse?
If all of these statements are true about the PAC 10 why is there so much chitter chatter about defending it. My own personal opinion about the state of California is that the world will be a better place when it becomes part of the Pacific ocean floor. Less crap on TV, less influence on the USA by movie stars stupidity, no more actors as governors! Maybe we should increase the border control from mexico up around california too! When the water starts coming you can't come a running!
Bring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on July 25, 2006 12:03 PM — 216.46.213.92 — link — abuse?
HEY!roll tide,I know the SEC has the best,toughest,roughest,meanest defenses in the universe..........LOL! I seem to remember a certain capital one bowl last year Hmmm oh yeah!the tv announcers kept talking about this fast,big,dominating Auburn D,and i kept asking myself "is he talking about this team"? Wisconsin (one of those wimpy big ten teams)was running so fast and far every play I had to double check to see if Auburn actually had anyone playing d!
And the lowly under recruited wisconsin team barely beat Auburn 24-10 and we wont say anything about that last drive of the game where wisconsin ran over the tiger defense one last time and downed the ball on the two yard line when we all know they were one play from ending score 31-10 but no,wisconsin is a classy small big ten school that probably had more than one STUDENT athlete playing that game and they had proven they were the better team so why run the score up and make the Auburn SEC defense look any worse?=)
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Regan said:
posted on February 27, 2006 11:14 PM — 205.188.116.133 — link — abuse?For those like me who believe that College Football and only College Football is the only Sport whatsoever, I must say how thankful I am that you guys are giving us fans something to get excited about during the ordinarily seven months of depression we call the off-season.
Now go buy a national TV station.