Big 12 should be Big 1.2

[LS20]

conferences are always varying in strength each year (except big 10..theyre always consistently good)... this year it is probably ACC or SEC

it was only in very very recent memory when OU, Texas, and KSU bullied everyone, with still-strong NEbraska, OSU, Missou, and Colorado hanging around the top-25 ranking. (once it was 1-2-5-13-etcetc)

Though , in my memory, the late 90s PAC 10 was unmatched... UO, OSU, UW, WSU, Stanford, UCLA, ASU all dominant.


but now, as it stands, the big 12 is not overrated because noone is saying that they are powerful

cliff notes: texas owns you

 

[LordUnum]

Originally posted by: gooseman
Oklahoma has 7 National Championships, how many does USC have?

Only 11 (soon to be 12?) in football...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Sad thing is, it's going to be hard for an ACC team to ever win the MNC again, because the conference champ is usually always going to have at least one loss from now on.

The SEC has had conference championship games since 1992. Since that time 5 schools have won the SEC with perfect in-conference records.

But not perfect records overall, since Spurrier had a hard time beating FSU.

I'd have to go back and look again but I think only one of those five teams didn't have perfect overall records.

What 5 teams? There have been 13 years since 1992.

1993 champ had a loss.
1994 champ had 2 losses, counting the bowl.
1995 champ got butt-raped in their bowl (UF vs. Nebraska)
1997 champ had 2 losses, counting the bowl.
1999 champ had 2 losses, counting the bowl.
2000 champ had 1 loss.
2001-2003 champs all had at least one loss.

So most of the SEC champs have had at least one loss. Which is going to be the same thing most years in the ACC now, and that's why I think the ACC will have a tough time winning the MNC often. Too tough a conference.

1992 - Alabama (13-0) National Champs
1995 - Florida (12-1, 8-0 SEC) Lost National Championship game
1996 - Florida (12-1, 8-0 SEC) Lost to Fl. State but won National Championship
1998 - Tennessee Volunteers (13-0) National Champs
2004 - Auburn (13-0)

That's 5 years where teams have gone undefeated in conference and competed for the National Championship. Throw in LSU with their one loss in 2003 and that's 6 teams that have competed for the National Championship. That's a pretty good average over the last 12 years.

 

[Pepsei]

ACC is the best this year.

 

[aeroguy]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: aeroguy
The Pac 10 has one great team this year just like the big 12 does. Oh, and speaking of last years bowl games, Texas won in the Rose Bowl and the second best team in the Pac 10, Cal, got their asses handed to them. Picking out one game in a season is asinine.

Now, are we talking about overrated just this year or also in past years? If we're speaking about traditionally strong conferences... the Pac 10 might as well be a mid-major.

You're picking out 1 game also. Cal basically kicked every team around last year and if you watched the USC vs Cal game last year whether you are a USC fan or not, you have to admit Cal played a lot better despite losing. It was mainly hte special teams that cost the game for Cal.

Furthermore, if you look at the Holiday Bowl, Texas Tech used a spread offense. How do you think Utah kicked so much ass last year? Cal couldn't handle spread offense. Also, Cal had a bunch of injured players by the end of last year. Geoff McArthur wasn't playing, Chase Lyman was out since the USC game.. blah blah blah... Their top receivers that Rodgers worked with all summer were out and they were using freshmen to play on.

You guys are just Pac-10 haters because what.. we have 5 ranked schools? Look at their players stats. There's a reason JJ Arrington rushed for over 100 yds per game last year and why Reggie Bush can't be stopped. Yea, and it's because the Pac-10 sucks right...

By picking out one game, I was mearly pointing out the fallacy of your logic. All that I see in your second paragraph are excuses. You're such a lame.