Who has USC beat all season buddy? UCLA who was ranked #12 (or whatever they were) at the time? What was Oregon rated at the time when they played USC? Not to mention those were the best teams they played all year...Get off the bong buddy...
Who has USC beat all season buddy? UCLA who was ranked #12 (or whatever they were) at the time? What was Oregon rated at the time when they played USC? Not to mention those were the best teams they played all year...Get off the bong buddy...
Here's a better question. Who has USC lost to in the last 2.5 years? Oh yeah, NOBODY. Any other college teams that can say that? Didn't think so.
USC beat Notre Dame, who is ranked #5. They also beat Oregon, who is ranked #6. What else do you want?? They beat everyone they play, period. What more can you ask of them? So you say UCLA is overrated, well USC beat them by 47. When was the last time an SEC team even scored 47 in a game, let alone won by that much against a highly ranked team!??!
They're a great team. But a great team in a weak conference. Throw them in the SEC I'd like to see how many they'd have then...
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
I love hearing everyone tout the SEC as such a great conference, but do you guys realize that this year they don't even have enough bowl eligible teams to play in all the bowl games reserved for them?
Do you honestly see SEC teams with their horrible offenses beating USC? No college defense can stop USC, period. Their lowest point total this year was what, 34 against Notre Dame?
If anyone other than a drunk, blind, fool considers Notre Dame to be the 5th best team in the nation or Oregon.
How many teams with winning records did ND beat? 2 or 3? Oregon? Not many. How many ranked teams did they beat? *crickets*
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
I will fully agree that there is no SEC team that can beat USC this year. Or Texas for that matter. From watching them, they are the two best matched teams we could possibly see playing for a national championship. Penn State is the only team with a loss that has any right to even be considered to play against either. Everyone else would get destroyed. And Notre Dame could probably be a 4 loss team and be in the top 10 with the way we rank them in this nation. Notre Dame does not deserve a BCS bowl
Two top 5 teams? The Pac 10? Since when? In one poll, the Coach's poll. Which is usually the most irrelevant poll, since the coaches all have an agenda.
Notre Dame's 9-2 is better than Oregon's 10-1. That is why they are going to a BCS bowl and Oregon isn't.
Oregon needs to play somebody outside of their conference before than can cry legitimately.
The bowl selections usually get it right when it comes to these teams with great records against mediocre competition.
Oregon is 0-1 vs. the top 10, and 1-1 vs. the top 25.
Put that team in the ACC, and they easily have 3 losses, probably more.
Why do you say SEC teams have weak offenses? Because they play against good defenses?
The best Defense USC has faces gives up 20.5 a game (Cal) and is 26th in the nation.
Auburn's "crappy" offense scored 28 in the first half on a defense that gives up 10.7 a game (Alabama), and 31 on a team that gives up 14.7 a game.
In fact, Auburn has averaged 34.2 a game after playing 7 scoring defense in the top 45. That includes two in the top 5 (Alabama and UGA), and 3 in the Top 10 with the worst being #45 MSU. USC averages 50 after playing two teams with a scoring Defense in the Top 45. Both whom are not better than 26th!
Their "signature" wins against Notre Dame and Oregon came against Defenses ranked 46 and 47th respectively.
But hey, 2 Defense in the Top 45 are equal to SEVEN in the Top 45, right?
There's not a PAC-10 Defense in the Top 25 in scoring. At least the SEC has an offense in the top 15 in scoring.
Notre Dame does DESERVE a BCS Bowl, because they are "special" enough to have their own language and rules in the BCS. Such horsesh!t.
"Any team from an independent institution Conference, USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, or Western Athletic Conference that is ranked three through six shall qualify for automatic selection.
If one or more teams other than Notre Dame qualify for automatic selection under this provision, Notre Dame shall also qualify provided it is ranked in the top ten or has won at least nine games.
If more than one at-large team qualifies for automatic selection under this provision and there are insufficient at-large slots available to accommodate all of them, the BCS bowls will select from those that qualify.
After application of the previous provisions, if any at-large slots remain unfilled and the team ranked either three or four is from the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-10, or Southeastern Conference but is not its representative, that team shall automatically fill one at-large slot and shall be selected to play in one of the BCS bowls. If both the third and fourth ranked teams meet these criteria, then only the third ranked team shall qualify automatically. The third and fourth ranked teams cannot both qualify automatically under this provision."
You are wrong. Year in and year out, the SEC is NOT the strongest conference. They can't even fill all their bowl slots this year.
FYI:
2005 Conference ratings as per Sagarin:
1. Big 10
2. ACC
3. Pac 10
4. Big 12
5. SEC
2004
1. ACC
2. Pac 10
3. Big 12
4. Big 10
5. SEC
2003
1. ACC
2. SEC
3. Big 10
4. Pac 10
5. Big 12
2002
1. Big 12
2. Pac 10
3. SEC
4. ACC
5. Big 10
2001
1. SEC
2. Big 12
3. Pac 10
4. ACC
5. Big 10
2000
1. Pac 10
2. Big 12
3. Big 10
4. Big East
5. SEC
6. ACC
1999
1. Big 10
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. Big 12
5. Pac 10
Oregon only beat one team with more than 7 wins, and that was Fresno St. by 3. They later were exposed.
What is this put them in the SEC and lets see how many losses they will have based on
the Pac 10 , SEC match up in the past couple of seasons (that I can recall on teh top of my head)
USC, Arkansas 70-12 (totatl destruction)
ASU, LSU - 34 - 31 (close lose)
Oregon state , LSU lsu won a close win (should have lost, lots of missed PATs by Serna (OSU kicker))
USC , Auburn (two wins for SC)
besides just speculating why the other confereces are better post some actual head to head match ups to prove why these pac 10 teams would have more losses in SEC
the Pac 10 , SEC match up in the past couple of seasons (that I can recall on teh top of my head)
USC, Arkansas 70-12 (totatl destruction)
ASU, LSU - 34 - 31 (close lose)
Oregon state , LSU lsu won a close win (should have lost, lots of missed PATs by Serna (OSU kicker))
USC , Auburn (two wins for SC)
besides just speculating why the other confereces are better post some actual head to head match ups to prove why these pac 10 teams would have more losses in SEC
Sagarin's ratings are unduly biased against Conferences with more than 10 teams or Conferences that play Championship games.
The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.
The more teams in your conference the lower your average will be. That's why the Big East looks "decent" in his ratings, whereas the WAC would destroy just about all of their teams this year, and I wouldn't be shocked if they lose their BCS slot eventually.
Arkansas is not a top-tier SEC team, whereas USC is a top-tier(really the only good team) Pac-10 team.
No excuse for Auburn's loss, other than the fact that we hired an Offensive Coordinator (our O-coord left us in the middle of the off-season) to replace our line coach that was the O-Coord, and promptly went 13-0 the next year.
What's the point of this debate. Can't everyone admit that a playoff system would answer all this nonsense?
point of debate is that just saying put this team in our conference and it wouldnt be undefeated , or they didnt deserve a BCS spot coz they play in a weak conference without any data is useless, head to head match ups is the only way to measure how good a conference is, or computer rankings (which you say are biased towards certain teams)
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
I hate the idea of a playoff system. If there were a playoff system, 75% of the bowl games would have no purpose. And the bowl games are way more fun to watch than playoffs, even if they have no national title implications.
The only team Oregon lost to was USC...only b/c USC beats everyone. I can't even believe I'm having an argument with people saying USC isn't the best team in the nation. Have you watched Reggie Bush's last 2 games?!?! 513 total yards last week, and 220 rushing yards in the first half this week. Throw in the reigning Heisman winner, and you can't lose.
I never said that they aren't the best team in the nation (real test will come against Texas either way) but I can't believe I'm having this discussion with someone who thinks the Pac10 is the best conference lol...
To Pacfanweb, you know those ratings are are bs and then you're quite foolish.
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
What you guys don't aknowledge is that the breadth of competition within the SEC, ACC, and the Big 10. Most teams in these conferences have to play 3-4 top programs, as well as get through a minefield of dangerous, but inconsistent teams. Whereas most teams in the Big 12 and Pac-10 very seldom play 3 top teams. USC is anamolous in the pac10 because they played all the good teams in the pac10 AND a (for once in the past 15 years) great ND team.
The teams in the big three of the big 10, SEC, and the ACC that manage to limp by with 1 loss deserve consideration before a team that lost its only real test, then played gimme games for the rest of the season. The only flub is Florida State, which is a dangerous team, but very inconsistent because it is filled with freshmen.
Oregon may have a great team, but they were never really tested. Had they played USC, UCLA AND a top out-of-conference team and beaten two out of three, AND gotten to 10-1, they would deserve a bid in bcs.
The teams in the big three of the big 10, SEC, and the ACC that manage to limp by with 1 loss deserve consideration before a team that lost its only real test, then played gimme games for the rest of the season. The only flub is Florida State, which is a dangerous team, but very inconsistent because it is filled with freshmen.
Oregon may have a great team, but they were never really tested. Had they played USC, UCLA AND a top out-of-conference team and beaten two out of three, AND gotten to 10-1, they would deserve a bid in bcs.
If his rating are biased against conferences with more than 10 teams, whyis the ACC ranked so high the last two years?
The Big Least has hardly ever looked good in Sagarin's ratings. In the list I posted, they only made the top 5 once, and that was when Miami, BC and VT were still in.
The ACC is the best conference, IMO, from top to bottom, especially this year.
The middle of the ACC is especially tough. Teams like BC, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Virginia, and GT can and often do beat top 10 teams on any given Saturday.
You just don't have that in the Pac 10, Big 12, or even the SEC this year.
Or let's see them wade through VT and Miami, then on their off-weeks tackle NC State, GT, BC, and Clemson.
No freaking way they are better than .500 against that schedule.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 392
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter