I hope Oklahoma

[Primal]

I hope Oklahoma drops out of the Top 10. They look like shit the past 2 games and shouldn't even be playing in this game.

[MrBug708]

USC would bitchslap both of these teams

[Easy Mac]

So would Cal

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by MrBug708
USC would bitchslap both of these teams

You are kdding me right? USC shouldnt be on the same filed with these two teams. See, Califorinia.

The Pac-10 cant hold a jock to the Big 12 or SEC.

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
You are kdding me right? USC shouldnt be on the same filed with these two teams. See, Califorinia.

The Pac-10 cant hold a jock to the Big 12 or SEC.


LOL

IS that the same Big-12 that lost to the PAC-10 in a bowl game?

PAC-10 is 4-2 in bowl games. We all knew UCLA didn't belong so that's 4-1

[Primal]

USC > UM > OSU > KSU > OU

[Easy Mac]

Oklahoma>Colorado>Colorado State>Cal>USC

[JHandley]

Or how about this?

Notre Dame > WSU > Texas > KSU > OU

And Notre Dame is atleast 2 years from decent

[Primal]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Oklahoma>Colorado>Colorado State>Cal>USC

Quit that.... I'm the only one who can do that.

[tucker rocky]

Didn't USC beat Auburn, an SEC team.

USC and LSU is what it should be.

[JHandley]

or this...

Cal > VT > Miami > Florida State

This suggests that Cal is better than 2 BCS bowl teams, it suggests that Cal is better than 2 Conference winners.

Or it could suggest that anything can happen in college football and that pointing to one loss as proof that a team isn't good is just silly.

[TargetPractice6]

Originally posted by Primal
USC > UM > OSU > KSU > OU
Five degrees of USC?

[Easy Mac]

Didn't Oklahoma beat Alabama, an SEC team.

Oklahoma and LSU is what it should be.

Didn't Oklahoma beat UCLA, an PAC 10 team.

Oklahoma and USC is what it should be.

Didn't Minnesota beat Louisiana-Lafayette.

Minnesota and North Texas is what it should be.

What's your point?

[tucker rocky]

If LSU wins, I still think they should be co-champions with USC.
I wonder if that will happen, probably not.
They'll throw a wrench into that.

USC is by far the team that got screwed this time in the BCS, which by the way should be trashed and buried. A total joke of a system of deciding who is who.

[Primal]

See another Int.... Oklahoma has been overrated all season.

[VPI97]

Maybe, but LSU has been underrated all season

[tucker rocky]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Didn't Oklahoma beat Alabama, an SEC team.

Oklahoma and LSU is what it should be.

Didn't Oklahoma beat UCLA, an PAC 10 team.

Oklahoma and USC is what it should be.

Didn't Minnesota beat Louisiana-Lafayette.

Minnesota and North Texas is what it should be.

What's your point?

I make a simple comment, and I get raked through the coals by this guy!!
What a blankety blank he is!!

THAT IS MY POINT!!

[Primal]

Ohhh... just got interesting

[Easy Mac]

oh, you'd know if I raked you through the coals... and you'd like it.

[tucker rocky]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
oh, you'd know if I raked you through the coals... and you'd like it.


>>>>>>>>>>>:rolleyes: J _ _ _ A _ _ !

[tucker rocky]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
oh, you'd know if I raked you through the coals... and you'd like it.

Nah, keep the rake and coals, you would like it better.

[JW]

USC = Al Gore.
LSU = George Bush.
Gore may have gotten more votes, and he may think he won and was robbed, but Bush is sitting in the White House.

Seriously, by the BCS rules, LSU is the BCS national champion. USC can claim the AP championship. Too bad the two won't get a chance to meet this season.

[Primal]

Originally posted by JW
USC = Al Gore.
LSU = George Bush.
Gore may have gotten more votes, and he may think he won and was robbed, but Bush is sitting in the White House.

Seriously, by the BCS rules, LSU is the BCS national champion. USC can claim the AP championship. Too bad the two won't get a chance to meet this season.

I feel dirty... you said Al Gore.

[digamma]

This is funny.

The three teams were practically indistinguishable before the bowls. LSU lost at home. USC lost to a team with six losses. OU got smacked by 28 points.

Short of a play-off, which for other reasons I do not favor, you have to have some way to pick two teams. These were the rules all teams agreed to before the season. It came out OU vs. LSU by a hair. They put on a pretty good show tonight.

Would a USC-LSU game have been better? More interesting? More just? More right?

Maybe so. Maybe not.

In the end, I say, here's to another great college football season!!! I'm counting the days until August.

[Primal]

I still thing the best way to pick 2 teams is.....

Play out the bowl games as normal (w/o the BCS) then select the 2 top teams to play the championship.

[GoldenEagle]

So Wasington State beat Texas....Texas lost three or four games this year. Oklahoma blew them out of the water.

[MrBug708]

PAC-10 always beats the Big-12 in bowl games. It's the way it goes

GE, what's the PAC-10's record vs the Big-12 and SEC the past 5 years? I'd be willing to be it favors the PAC-10

[MrBug708]

Pac 10 is 6-1 vs. the SEC over the last 5 years, and the Pac 10 is 13-13 against the Big 12 (including this bowl season).

Your move....

[digamma]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Pac 10 is 6-1 vs. the SEC over the last 5 years, and the Pac 10 is 13-13 against the Big 12 (including this bowl season).

Your move....

The ACC went 5-1 in bowls this season and won the Conference Championship Cup?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Conference USA went 1-4 in bowl games this year. That one win? The mighty Memphis Tigers! I declare Memphis the national champions!

[JMoore1]

Alright LSU gets a little glory . This will probably be only Nick Saban's little time to shine. If I haven't seen a bigger caucasian than that italian motha then I dont what...LOL that shit cracks me up... Their only little title to fame while oklahoma racks up 2005-2008....Hahahaha

[JMoore1]

Wait, Wait you didnt hear my....

BITCH ASS!

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Conference USA went 1-4 in bowl games this year. That one win? The mighty Memphis Tigers! I declare Memphis the national champions!

Someone has seen the light.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Pac 10 is 6-1 vs. the SEC over the last 5 years, and the Pac 10 is 13-13 against the Big 12 (including this bowl season).

Your move....

Give me the list of SEC games.

[JHandley]

This is where college football gets itself in trouble. The strength of a conference has absolutely no influence on the strength of a particular team in the conference. None at all. It's futile to even attempt it.

Here's an analogy for ya. We'll do cars. What's your saying is that the Ford Focus is faster than a Hyundai Tiberon because Ford makes more models of faster cars than Hyundai does. You have to take the teams on their own merit, not the merit of the teams around them.

Now you can compare USC to OU to LSU all day long and make some great arguements for all teams involved, but once you bring in conference VS conference, the arguement loses value.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Give me the list of SEC games.

Why don't you give him credit for coming up with stats? I have seen nothing from you but blatant bias.

Off the top of my head, UCLA swept Alabama in a home-and-home, and USC swept Auburn the past two years. I think Oregon beat the living crap out of Mississippi or Mississippi State a couple years ago.

This is just regular season, though--I find it hard to believe the two conferences have only played seven times all told in the past five seasons--if Bug is talking about bowl matchups only, none of the above games were bowls.

CR

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by tucker rocky
Didn't USC beat Auburn, an SEC team.

USC and LSU is what it should be. Huh??? USC only went 2-6 in SEC play this year, and didn't play Auburn. Their only wins in The Conference were Vandy and Kentucky. Clemson even beat them by 46. I don't understand why they are in this discussion at all. The Gamecocks had a pretty embarrassing year overall.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Huh??? USC only went 2-6 in SEC play this year, and didn't play Auburn. Their only wins in The Conference were Vandy and Kentucky. Clemson even beat them by 46. I don't understand why they are in this discussion at all. The Gamecocks had a pretty embarrassing year overall.

Skydog you big meanie, why are you raking tucker rocky over the coals like that?? He only made a simple comment and you treat him like this.

Can't you see that he's a bit...well, sensitive???

[sooner333]

OU did play the national champs to within 7 points, and had numerous (failed) opportunities to tie the game at the end. Granted, Jason White played awful, but the defense played well. In the end, no two-loss team had losses against better teams than Oklahoma, and they deserve to be #3 in the nation.

[Airhog]

I find this thread to be totally pointless. OU didnt play great, but the game wasnt really a blow-out. Im just glad that OU got a shot at another title. And OU wont drop out of the top 10. With stoops at the helm we will always be a great team.

[Balldog]

No two loss team got beat by 28 points either.

[kcchief19]

Missouri>Nebraska>Oklahoma State>Kansas State>Cal>USC

Missouri>Nebraska>Oklahoma State>Kansas State>Oklahoma

Missouri>Texas Tech>Mississipi>Florida>LSU

M-I-Z! Z-O-U!

[Noop]

I would just like to say Oklahoma lost that game before the fourth period most people outside of Norman knew LSU had won the game. Jason White is pure trash and he was exposed Pitt's receiver should have won the Hypesman. No OU should not be in the top five, top ten maybe but not top five they lost two games in a row.

[tucker342]

No, Colgate should be #1:

USC lost to Cal.
Cal lost to Kansas State.
Kansas State lost to Marshall.
Marshall lost to Toledo.
Toledo lost to Ball State.
Ball State lost to Western Michigan.
Western Michigan lost to Michigan State.
Michigan State lost to Louisiana Tech.
Louisiana Tech lost to Rice.
Rice lost to Navy.
Navy lost to Delaware.
Delaware lost to Northeastern.
Northeastern lost to Harvard.
Harvard lost to Columbia.
Columbia lost to Fordham.
Fordham lost to Lehigh.
Lehigh lost to Colgate.

and then for LSU:

LSU lost to Florida.
Florida lost to Florida State.
Florida State lost to Clemson.
Clemson lost to Maryland.
Maryland lost to Northern Illinois.
Northern Illinois lost to Toledo.
Toledo lost to Ball State.
Ball State lost to Western Michigan.
Western Michigan lost to Michigan State.
Michigan State lost to Louisiana Tech.
Louisiana Tech lost to Rice.
Rice lost to Navy.
Navy lost to Delaware.
Delaware lost to Northeastern.
Northeastern lost to Harvard.
Harvard lost to Columbia.
Columbia lost to Fordham.
Fordham lost to Lehigh.
Lehigh lost to Colgate.



come on people it's that obvious!

[sooner333]

I don't see how you could say that during the fourth quarter when OU had the ball inside the 20 down by 7 that the game was over. I don't think Jason White was the best player in the country, let alone the best QB, but before the trophy was given out, it's hard to take away from his accomplishments. Even in the loss vs. K-State he threw for 300 yards. He was awful in the LSU game, I don't know if it was his hand, but since he won't make excuses, I won't do it for him. Anyway, LSU is the champion, OU is #3 and its all been said and done and we'll see what happens next year.

Anyway, it's painfully clear Div. III Chowan should be #1 in light of the BCS being imperfect.

681 Chowan beat 637 Randolph Macon
beat 581 Emory & Henry
beat 634 Catholic
beat 586 La Salle
beat 518 Marist
beat 501 Central Conn
beat 298 Monmouth NJ
beat 283 Georgetown
beat 216 Lafayette
beat 222 Columbia
beat 147 Harvard
beat 117 Northeastern
beat 47 Delaware
beat 71 Navy
beat 104 Rice
beat 94 Louisiana Tech
beat 33 Michigan St
beat 10 Iowa
beat 21 Florida
beat 1 LSU

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Why don't you give him credit for coming up with stats? I have seen nothing from you but blatant bias.


You call just saying 6-1 is stats? Come on, CR. He has no link to this and no proof of it.

For all I know, all six wins could have came against Vandy.

Miss. St has had two down years in a row. Alabama has been down also for the past couple of years.

No one one from the Pac-10 has played a quaility team except USC, and we know they are good. But the rest of the Pac-10 can not back them up.

Hardly what I call stats.

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle

Miss. St has had two down years in a row. Alabama has been down also for the past couple of years.

No one one from the Pac-10 has played a quaility team except USC, and we know they are good. But the rest of the Pac-10 can not back them up.

.

C'mon GE< I talk to u on AIM. Why would I bring up random stats? Besides, one of those games vs Bama was when Franchonie was there and according to HPF, he's an awesome coach.

6-1 is still 6-1

[MrBug708]

Dola

So Vandy is good enough for the SEC to beat up on (no other reason they are there, maybe to boast academics up as well) but they don't count vs OOC?

I actually can't recall the last time a PAC-10 played Vandy

[MrBug708]

Dola

vs SEC

Arizona 1-4-1
Arizona St 0-2
Cal 14-19
Oregon 3-4
OSU 0-10-1
USC 28-8-2
Stanford 3-1-1
UCLA 20-19-1
Washington 2-5
WSU 1-5

vs Big-12

Arizona 21-53-6 (ouch)
Arizona St 14-11
Cal 2-7
Oregon 11-23
OSU 12-21
USC 15-10-1
Stanford 9-9
UCLA 12-13-1
Washington 21-18-2
WSU 11-24


OPbviously, the SEC has benefited from not playing the PAC-10 as much and the Big-12 from playing tradional doormats in WSU and Arizona. For kicks, I checked out two teams, one from each of the SEC and Big-12 that are doormats and 2 more that are powerhouses. Vanderbilt is 0-1 vs the PAC-10. Ironically enough it was against UCLA. Baylor from the Big-12 is 12-10 vs the PAC-10. I was a little more intriqued so I checked out who they have played and beaten. I was a little more surprised to find that they are 6-2 vs the Washington schools. I picked Texas from the Big-12 as the school to compare. They are an alarming 20-12 vs the PAC-10 over the years. They are 11-3 vs the NW schools but 2-6 vs the SoCal schools. The recent tread for Texas vs the PAC-10 has been rather disappointing with losses in 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2003 with wins coming in 1999 and 2002. From the SEC, I picked Florida. 6-4-1 vs the PAC-10 2-3 vs UCLA and 4-1-1 vs the rest of the PAC-10

[JMoore1]

All I have to say is NOOP shut up. Don't you play for Miami. We's warriors, we's warriors...please nigga maybe you should look into american history where the ndns were the true warriors...

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Primal
I still thing the best way to pick 2 teams is.....

Play out the bowl games as normal (w/o the BCS) then select the 2 top teams to play the championship.

And what would you have done last season (Miami/OSU)?

[Buccaneer]

All this talk about Pitt's WR should have won the Heisman is one of the funniest jokes I have heard in a while.

[Primal]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
And what would you have done last season (Miami/OSU)?

Umm.... good point

[sooner333]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
And what would you have done last season (Miami/OSU)?

Actually, the REAL question is what would you have done THIS season? USC/Michigan in the Sugar Bowl as the Big 10 and Pac 10 Champs. I guess we'll say K-State in the Fiesta as the Big 12 Champions (or the Orange). Oklahoma is not really locked into any bowl...anybody could invite them. You still could have had three one-loss teams, then how do you pick the team that gets left out?

Furthermore, if Oklahoma HAD beat Kansas State, then you have two one-loss teams that would be playing in separate bowls and could still have both one (and OU wouldn't be playing in either one of them for sure, because they would be in the Fiesta).

What if the two best teams are from the Pac Ten and Big 10 (like two undefeateds and they are the only two)? You have either a) a potential for a back-door champion who didn't go the regular season undefeated, or a rematch a few weeks later where the loser in the first game could win the second time and declare themselves national champions. You couldn't just cancel the game because of the money and TV contractual obligations. Then it doesn't seem like such a good idea.

There are basically four options that would be viable and be somewhat fair.

a) Old Bowl system with polls determining two separate national championships.
b) Old Bowl system with the BCS determining the National Champion (better than a)
c) Current BCS system with a two-team playoff (better than a and b)
d) Some sort of playoff (either the top four teams or eleven conf. champs plus one) which would at some level include the bowls (better than all of the above, but unlikely given the attitudes of college presidents)

[DeToxRox]

D sounds good in theory, but won't happen.

The smaller programs who go 8-4 and we'll sneak into a bowl game won't now get a chance to play on National TV.

They lose out on possible recruits, and recoginition.

The conferences and schools lose out on additional revenue.

These are just some reasons, and there are still a whole lot more.

[GoldenEagle]

I wasnt questioned the randomness, Kyle. But you didnt link it up. Vandy should count in OOC. But I would put the top SEC programs against the top Pac-10 programs and I think the SEC would win 9 out of 10 with the exception of USC.

I don't have evidence of that, because these teams probably will not play each other because of brutual in conference schedules. That is just an opinion.

I think the conference rankings go like this:
SEC
Big 12
Pac-10
Big 10

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by MrBug708
LOL

IS that the same Big-12 that lost to the PAC-10 in a bowl game?

PAC-10 is 4-2 in bowl games. We all knew UCLA didn't belong so that's 4-1

Should UCLA count toward OOC?

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
But I would put the top SEC programs against the top Pac-10 programs and I think the SEC would win 9 out of 10 with the exception of USC.


So we can take out LSU then? No doubt the PAC-10 is weak when it comes to second place this year, but then again, we do have 2 Top-10 teams

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by sooner333
Actually, the REAL question is what would you have done THIS season? USC/Michigan in the Sugar Bowl as the Big 10 and Pac 10 Champs. I guess we'll say K-State in the Fiesta as the Big 12 Champions (or the Orange). Oklahoma is not really locked into any bowl...anybody could invite them. You still could have had three one-loss teams, then how do you pick the team that gets left out?

Furthermore, if Oklahoma HAD beat Kansas State, then you have two one-loss teams that would be playing in separate bowls and could still have both one (and OU wouldn't be playing in either one of them for sure, because they would be in the Fiesta).

What if the two best teams are from the Pac Ten and Big 10 (like two undefeateds and they are the only two)? You have either a) a potential for a back-door champion who didn't go the regular season undefeated, or a rematch a few weeks later where the loser in the first game could win the second time and declare themselves national champions. You couldn't just cancel the game because of the money and TV contractual obligations. Then it doesn't seem like such a good idea.

There are basically four options that would be viable and be somewhat fair.

a) Old Bowl system with polls determining two separate national championships.
b) Old Bowl system with the BCS determining the National Champion (better than a)
c) Current BCS system with a two-team playoff (better than a and b)
d) Some sort of playoff (either the top four teams or eleven conf. champs plus one) which would at some level include the bowls (better than all of the above, but unlikely given the attitudes of college presidents)

It's funny but I believe the exact reverse. A is better than B because poll voters can do a better (not perfect) job of picking the rankings (witness Nebraska two years ago and OU this season). B is better than C because more times than not, you would not and should not need to have an extra playoffs (I would bet that a majority of the time, you can identify one or two of the best teams, more than 3 or 4 best teams). C is better than D because you now you made the top 8 or 12 or 16 teams all equal when they are not.

The simplest and best (imo) solution is to eliminate computer/BCS polls and go with just one voting poll (AP/ESPN/etc Combine). With a playoffs, you would never get the seeding right and again, more times than not, the cream does rise to the top after 3 1/2 months of play. Sometimes it's just one obvious team, sometimes it's two and occasionally, it would be 3 or 4. Just poll the knowledgable voters and crown the most vote getter, if that's really important to you.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by MrBug708
So we can take out LSU then? No doubt the PAC-10 is weak when it comes to second place this year, but then again, we do have 2 Top-10 teams

Ok, we take out LSU and USC and compare the two conferences. Who is stronger then.

In the SEC, you have:
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Ole Miss

Pac-10
Washington St.
????

[MrBug708]

What are you basing it off of though? Their ability to beat Div 2 talent teams? Or Vandy?

[sooner333]

Bucc- I'm not sure I agree with a playoff, because most years it is irrelevant after playing the BCS. I can also see your argument that B is better than C. But, here's where we differ. Basically it comes down to this. People complain that the computer/mathematical rankings have teams like Miami of Ohio too high in the rankings. This is unfair because the public compare these to the voter polls instead of to the other computer polls. I think you can definetly make a logistical argument to make Miami of Ohio a top 5 team (their only loss to a top 15 team in a year when top teams lost more than one game and most teams lost to a much weaker opponent). Mathematical polls are in nature different from voter polls.

Each side has its plusses and minuses. While human voters in the media and coaching profession have little opportunity to watch every game (I would find it hard to believe that coaches watched more than 2 Miami of Ohio games unless they played them in the season or were in the MAC), computers can analyze every game in an objective way. While they don't visually watch every game physically, they take the data of every game played into consideration. While I could look at each game score and chart them out considering which teams have played other teams, and come up with some sort of system, it would take a very long time without the assistance of a fancy-ass-caluclator (to use OOTP terms), the computer. These formulas have also been approved by humans for use as a legitimate way to rank teams.

On the other hand, computers cannot recognize if a team lost their starting QB at the end of a game and lost a close one. Human voters can see the storyline of a game and rank teams accordingly. The loss would still hurt, but not as much.

This is why I think that both forms of rankings belong in a system and to leave one or the other out would be a bad thing for coming up with a broader ranking of teams (you can never be "accurate" but adding more valid datapoints allows for a more averaged out poll, meaning that a team with one superficially high or low ranking would be averaged out). I will stand by the BCS and its formula and hope that nothing jurastic is taken. Maybe take out the NY Times poll because their rankings are way off of any other rankings out there, mathematical, voting, or otherwise, and if another ranking can't varify them a little bit, something is wrong. But as far as Miami of Ohio goes, many of the mathematical formulas have Miami as a top 5 team, so they have been varified as a legitimate top 5 team.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally posted by JMoore1
All I have to say is NOOP shut up. Don't you play for Miami. We's warriors, we's warriors...please nigga maybe you should look into american history where the ndns were the true warriors...

Kirby Puckett.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by MrBug708
What are you basing it off of though? Their ability to beat Div 2 talent teams? Or Vandy?

You act like the Pac-10 doesn't have it slate of runovers in the league. California? Oh wait, they beat the league's best team. And we think they deserve a national championship?

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Kirby Puckett.

No, no....this is more of a Freddy Adu post.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Pumpy Tudors
Kirby Puckett.

Worst post ever. (The one PumpyTudors was responding to, but I don't want to quote the original.)

[Chief Rum]

GE, I don't think Bug is arguing for the quality of the Pac-10 overall this year, although you have to admit, the conference's strong bowl performance does lend a little more credence to its ability than you seem to want to give it credit for.

I think his point is more about the general quality of the Pac-10. You seem to enjoy ripping into it, and we are still waiting for something substantial from you that would establish it as a substandard league.

You are talking about this year, when we have been saying all year that the Pac-10 was down. What about last year? Or the year before? It is amazing to me that the conference can continue to perform well, and yet, there will always be someone back east who can't really accept that it is a quality conference. It's not hard at all for me to look at other conferences and admit they are good. Why is it so hard for some people when it comes to the Pac-10?

This is what we talk about when we talk about the East Coast bias, that so many people say is overrated and doesn't exist. Well, if that's true, then why are Pac-10 fans having to constantly defend their conference from people back east like you, whom at least appear to not even give it a second thought that the Pac-10 is a second-rate conference. Like, that is your opinion and you're sticking to it, no matter what evidence contrary to that is thrown out there.

The fact is this conference has been brutal for years now, being exceptionally strong from top to bottom. There are rarely easy oputs in this conference, now that Oregon State has been elevated into a regular contender. They were the guys that used to be our "Vandy". Now, we have Arizona down, but I suspect that's because someone always has to be down. Arizona has a recent history of strong success, like when they were competing for national titles and ROse Bowls with their Desert Swarm defenses of the early-to-mid-90s.

The fact is, this is what we have in this conference.

Arizona: Current low dog, aforementioned success in the 90s. Now has the highly-regarded Mike Stoops running the program.

Arizona State: National title contender with Jake Plummer in 1997, and has been a consistent presence in the Pac-10 races the past few years.

California: For all your ripping on them, they beat V-Tech and USC. Not to bad. They enjoyed consistent success in the 90s, particularly early on when Mariucci was coaching there.

Stanford: The conference's rollercoaster team and one which has some of the richest history in the conference. Abit down this year, but has been one of the stronger programs overall in the Pac-10 the past few years, particularly under Ty Willingham. Went to the Rose Bowl in 1999, and was a BCS contender two years ago.

Oregon: The conference's most consistent team. Always in the top five of the conference since the early 90s, mostly under Mike Belotti. Contended for a national title two years ago. Even this year's team beat the living snot out of Michigan.

Oregon State: Former longtime doormat hasn't had a losing season since 1998. Was a BCS team in 2000 when it beat the crap out of Notre Dame. A regular presence in the conference race the past few years and looking to continue that under Mike Riley.

Washington: Probably the best overtall program in the conference the past 25 years. In the Don James era of the late 70s to early 90s, Washington was dominant, winning a co-championship in 1991 and contending for others. Just missed the Rose Bowl in 1999, and contended for the national title in 2000. It has been hurt by the departed Neuheisel's problems, but this is a program that is never down long.

Washington State: They are off int he middle of nowhere, but coaches like Erickson, Price and now Doba have shown that winners can be built here. Washington State is consistently one of the most underrated programs int he country, and they always shock you when you least expect it. Went to the Rose Bowl in 1997 under Ryan Leaf's tutelage, and have been BCS contenders the past three seasons. Have a history of jumping up in a big way every 3-4 years prior to Ryanb Leaf, but has since been one of the more consistent powers in the country.

UCLA: They didn't deserve to be in a bowl game this year. That doesn't mean they were a bad team. With better coaching, this team might have gone much farther this year, because the talent is certainly there (at least based on recruiting classes--only USC recruits better and more consistently in this conference). UCLA contended for national titles in 1997 and 1998, and made a name for themselves destroying quality nonconference opponents in the early going of the 2000-2002 seasons before getting bad against the (by your reasoning) "weaker" Pac-10 conference. Was a prime BCS contender as late as November in 2001, when DeShaun Foster's SUV incident led to a complete collapse. One of the most tradition-laden programs in the conference and the country (although usually overshadowed by basketball).

USC: Do I really need to go into detail here? One of the most storied programs in football history. Best recruiting in the conference, and maybe the country. Seems to be a juggernaut on its way to the kind of status the Florida teams enjoyed in the 90s. Has a rich football hsitory eclipsed by only the likes of Notre Dame in college football. And, oh yeah, 2003 co-champ, and a BCS contender last year.

Where exactly are the holes here. Could you build up as impressive an array of quality from the likes of Missippi State, Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, or South Carolina?

No one is questioning the quality of SEC football here. Your top teams are very good teams, and I feel like the SEC has as good a chance of being the best conference in any given year as any other conference. But that doesn't mean you have to disrespect the Pac-10. The league is quality, and it doesn't deserve your inability to grasp that fact, just because they don't play your way of football, or because the games are played too late.

CR

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
You act like the Pac-10 doesn't have it slate of runovers in the league. California? Oh wait, they beat the league's best team. And we think they deserve a national championship?

Just curious, but what do you know about California? They did just put up 52 points on VT, a team known for strong defense, albeit a team that fades at the end of the year.

[HornedFrog Purple]

And now for the other side of the story...

What the Pac-10 has a tough time doing is putting up a run of success at the national level. This may change with the emergence of USC, but that will be determined.

The last team in my mind to make a real impact in college football from the Pac-10 was Arizona. Why? Because they figured out that if you want to compete against the rest of the country you have to play defense.

When Pete Carroll went to USC, I thought one of two things. Either he is going to own the Pac-10 or he will be gone within 3 years. Now why is that? Because he has styled his team to compete on the national level, not the Pac-10.

How the heck did Washington State finish second in the Pac-10? Their offense isn't overly intimidating is it? Because they figured out, you have to stop somebody first. That is part of why they beat Texas because they took it to Texas. (among other obvious things)

When you are used to playing that type of football, you become good at it. How the heck did LSU win the BCS? Because to win the SEC you have to stop somebody first.

Until the mentality of the conference changes as a whole with 5 or 6 teams adapting the mentality of competing on the national level, then you're going to have a mini-run and no one to pick up the slack when those teams falter. (which they will in any given year it is inevitable)

That is why you see team(s) from the other 3 conferences year in and year out making a run. Because they are used to it. When they survive their conference they can beat anybody.

There is a reason why the ACC and the Big East are second fiddles when their perennial title contenders slip up. The Pac-10 like it or not is in the same boat.

I don't care what time the Pac-10 plays. I'll watch them. That has nothing to do with it. I watch them a lot during the season, and it's the same song different verse.

Stoops going to Arizona is a good thing because I guarantee you the first thing he will try there is to stop somebody.

And there is my perspective of the Pac-10 in a nutshell. They are getting closer and if they follow up this campaign with 2 or 3 more in similar fashion then the rest of the country will have to take notice.

[sooner333]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
California: For all your ripping on them, they beat V-Tech and USC. Not to bad. They enjoyed consistent success in the 90s, particularly early on when Mariucci was coaching there.


They went 5-5-1 the one season Mariucci was the coach. Then downhill from there with Holmoe. I think now is their best success in a long time.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Just curious, but what do you know about California? They did just put up 52 points on VT, a team known for strong defense, albeit a team that fades at the end of the year. No offense, but that doesn't mean much. One of our coaches told me that Bud Foster (the Def. Coord) was seriously considering benching half our defense for the bowl game because they didn't give a crap about that game. Sadly, not caring about games is becoming more and more common in Blacksburg, but I digress. The proper way to view Cal's win is to equate it to a win over Temple or Rutgers.

[sooner333]

I picked Cal to win the game because I saw VA Tech struggle toward the end of the season after its win over Miami. After that it was only downhill. Cal isn't a bad football team, it's just not all that great. They beat some good teams and lost to some not as good teams. Cal is an average football team.

[IMetTrentGreen]

good post, hfp

right on

[Chief Rum]

Agreed, good post, HFP. And I agree with you completely on the focus on a national level. What you may not know is that that is something Pac-10 teams have actually done. Maybe not in a way that worked too well, but it is. You mention Arizona. But how can you forget Bob Toledo's UCLA teams? Especially early on. Those were teams that were made to win nationally. What Toledo did wrong (among other things that became very apparent later in his tenure at UCLA) was that he overemphasized offense at the expense of the defense. Even so, it was enough for him to be a national title contender in two seasons, and a BCS contender as late as November in a third, as well as nationally rated recruiting classes, in the span of just seven seasons. You also forget about the early 90s Washington teams that were so dominant.

What I disagree with is the notion that the Pac-10 is somehow poor on defense. This is something I have hashed out in the past, although obviously to no avail. :(

At some point, you have to acknowledge that just because it isn't done the SEC or B-12 or B-10 way, doesn't mean its bad. Those conferences all feature big, bruising defenses. The Pac-10 is built for speed on defense, because it has to be. The most varied and intricate offenses in the country are generally played out west, and the Pac-10 needs to have mobile defenses that can keep up with the flashy skill position players of the Pac-10.

The reason Pac-10 teams don't make consistent runs like an Oklahoma or the Florida schools in the 90s or what not is a combination of the parity of the conference, which has been an oustanding factor of conference play for over a decade now, and, yes, to an extent, East Coast bias.

Consider also that the late times of games makes it hard for the Pac-10 to compete nationally for recruits. Sure, we have a gold mine out here in California of recruits, almost as rich as Florida and Texas, but that's all we have. And even that is picked at by schools back east. We also have just one New Year's Day (or later) tie in to a bowl (the Rose Bowl). It seems like the three other big conferences have at least 3-4 (that might be stretching it, but it seems that way). That's a lot of big time exposure for those schools and those conferences.

So recruiting the big boys growing on the farms in the Midwest and South ain't so easy, especially when home probably feels a lot farther away in California than in anywhere else in the country.

As I put up in a past argument, I would hold that the "weak defense" you see is a result of the high-flying offenses the Pac-10 regularly faces, which usually concentrate on passing, which produces a higher yards per attempt than running the ball. More yardage equals more scoring and the impression the conference can't hang defensively. And that's just not true. Nor does creating a defense ensure success in the Pac-10. Look at UCLA. You mention Washington State's defense, but conveniently ignore the fact that UCLA's defense was close to or even better statistically than the Cougars. So what was the difference? Offense, of course.

USC has enjoyed as much success becasue of its offense as tis defense, too. The defense is a very good one, one of the best in the country. But USC has generally had a solid defense for years now. What it had problems with was turnover-prone offenses that couldn't run the ball well. Now they bring in OC Norm Chow and they have a well-run three-receiver passing attack and have shown they can still run the ball out of that formation, too. It is that electric offense that elevated their game to what ti is. By comparison, the defense took baby steps forward.

In the Pac-10, defense keeps you int he contending picture. And offense wins it for you. I know it doesn't work that way in other conferences, but that doesn't mean it's worse.

CR

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by VPI97
No offense, but that doesn't mean much. One of our coaches told me that Bud Foster (the Def. Coord) was seriously considering benching half our defense for the bowl game because they didn't give a crap about that game. Sadly, not caring about games is becoming more and more common in Blacksburg, but I digress. The proper way to view Cal's win is to equate it to a win over Temple or Rutgers.

52 points, is a lot of points in college football

[IMetTrentGreen]

the reason no one lisdtens to you, cjeif rum, is that all those stats and crap you list are meaningless and out of context

usc and arizona of the 90s are they only two really good defenses that league has seen, no matter what the stats say. its offense then defense out there, and has been for some time

[MrBug708]

UCLA had a top defense in 1997 with numerous players from that team in the NFL

[HornedFrog Purple]

Chief I mentioned Arizona because there was a span of 3 or 4 years when they were darn tough on defense.

Of course you have to have a good offense to be a good team. But in football generally you are going to have 2 or 3 games a season when your offense isnt clicking and your defense has to bail you out. Defense on the whole is a much more consistant factor in a team's makeup.

Heck if it wasn't for OU's defense stepping it up in the 2nd half they would have lost by 30 to LSU.

As far as recruiting etc, believe it or not there was a time many years ago when Baylor was a tough nut to crack. They would give non-conference foes fits and that being with a definite recruiting disadvantage over any Pac-10 school.

Other conferences have a variety of offensive mindsets also. In the SEC you have Floridas, Tennessees and Georgias contrasted by the LSUs, Auburns and Alabamas.

In the Big-12 you have complete opposite spectrums ranging from Kansas State, Nebraska to Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

Texas Tech was setting every kind of offensive record known to mankind but they could not stop a division III school.

LSU was prepared for an Oklahoma because they had beaten a team like Georgia who runs things similar on offense.

UCLA under Toledo is another lesser example and one I did forget. Once you get that side of the ball working, then you can upgrade or fix the offense.

The key to this whole thing is to keep the vision consistant and don't flounder back to what the other teams are doing. USC has definitely kept that vision during Carroll's tenure and it has obviously paid dividends.

[GoldenEagle]

Chief - your points are valid and well taken. I am not saying that the Pac-10 is a sub -standard conference. The third best conference in football is hardly what I call sub-standard. I do not believe that they are as strong as the SEC or Big 12. That is my opinion. The Pac-10 may have had a down year and that is fine, but the SEC had one as well. I am more familiar with the SEC, so I will validate my points with that conference instead of the Big 12.

LSU - National Champions, or at least partial champs. But to say that they were far from being good this year only is an understatement. They have been to two BCS bowls.

Record against Pac 10 teams:
2-0 vs. Arizona (the most recent in 2003)
2-1 vs. Oregon (the most recent in 1977)
3-0 vs. Oregon State (the most recent in 1982)
1-0 vs. Washington (the most recent in 1983)

Total: 8-1

Florida - Were the national champions in 1996 and have been to a number of very prestigious bowl games. Have been very good recently and built up a prominent national program. No head to head records could be found except that they played UCLA and Washington in bowl games in the late 80`s losing both of them.

Georgia - Won the National championship in 1980. Has been a recognized fixture in every top 10 poll recently. I also could not find a record against Pac-10 teams. They lost to Stanford in a 1978 bowl game.

Ole Miss - Had a very good season this year. They seem to be up and down. They were one of the top teams in the nation consistently in the 60`s. No records against Pac-10 teams could be found.

Miss St. - The may have been down for the past couple of year, but they were a very good program in the 90’s. The made an SEC Championship game appearance in 1998. They went been to the Peach Bowl several times in the 90’s.

Vandy - The traditional SEC doormat and probably would have already left if they were not a charter member. They really don’t add much to the SEC to help in this argument.

Arkansas - This is a team that I disagree with you on and I think you have forgot some recent college football history that you point to in your Pac-10 posts. Arkansas would have played in the National Championship game in I think it was 1995 had it not been for Clint Sterner’s infamous fumble against Tennessee. Did they deserve to play in it? Probably not. But they would have. They also lost by a TD to Oklahoma in the 2001 Cotton Bowl and whipped Texas in the1999 Cotton Bowl. They also beat Texas on the road this season pretty handily.

Kentucky - Again, a team that really has not added much to the SEC. They did go to a couple of bowl games in the late 90’s, including the Outback Bowl.

South Carolina - The program has seen a bit of resurgent since Lou Holtz took over. They beat Ohio State in back to back Outback Bowls in 2000 and 2001.

I can go on and on about Tennessee, Alabama, and Auburn but I think we both agree that they are all historical and very successful programs. The SEC has tradition on its side that I don’t think the Pac 10 can match.

I have nothing against the Pac-10 and I think they are a very good football conference. Do I think they are the best? No. Do I think they have the best tradiiton? No. Do I respect the Pac-10? Yes.

MrBug saying that USC could blow LSU off the field is his opinion but I think it is not true and I think you will find that most people on this board will agree with me I think. To say that I have this East Coast bias is totally unwarranted. I have seen Pac-10 teams play. I don’t care what style of football anyone plays. I think the Pac-10 is a quality conference. I never see where I didn’t say that.

[Chief Rum]

Very well thought out post, GE. I apologize if I mischaracterized your stance on the Pac-10. I am so used to the conference being spurned by people, most of whom have not spent even a second actually watching Pac-10 football or bothering to verify the similarly misguided opinions of their locally-based writers, that is very easy for me to jump to conclusions about how another might feel about the Pac-10.

Your points are well-taken on your SEC teams and generally hit on the main points I felt each had. I did forget that Arkansas run in 1995, although I knew they had played much better in recent years. My reference to them and South Carolina were more as a reflection of their history in the game going back several decades.

It's hard to compare conferences that have ten teams and twelve teams. There is more room for 12-team conferences to have strong programs (simply based on numbers), and they are equally likely to have more doormats. Perhaps that is the difference between what we are seeing in the SEC and B-12, and the Pac-10.

The ongoing parity of the Pac-10 is both a boon and bane. It helps for competitive purposes, because all schools have their ups and downs, and the top is rarely that far from the bottom. The result is a very competitive conference with lots of drama and close games. The bad part of it is, as as has been noted, the fact that it is extremely difficult to get throught he Pac-10 schedule without losing. Having a bad day against your average Pac-10 team will probably mean a loss for another Pac-10 team, even if it's the league champ going against the doormat.

Whether it is because the ability of the top programs to build on their long tradition or because the conference has 12 teams, I do believe the SEC and B-12 have true doormats that you won't find in the Pac-10. So there are a few "easy" games on the schedule, games Georgia and Tennessee and LSU and Florida, for instance, just aren't going to lose, at least in most years. Since the rise of Oregon State to prominence, I don't think the Pac-10 has had a true doormat in that fashion. Arizona has been horrible recently, but there is plenty of evidence to show that this is just another case of a school always having to be down. It is never the same school for long. I guess that last sentence encapsulates a primary difference I see between the two conferences.

It's always Florida, or Tennessee or Georgia or LSU. If it's not one, it's the other. Every now and then Alabama (post-Bryant 'Bama), Auburn, and Ole Miss, for instance, will jump up and be a brief power, but the cycle always seems to end and then they falter again, only to be replaced by another team ont he rise.

The Pac-10 doesn't seem to have that. USC's recent dominance coming after a decade of mediocrity. UCLA is down now after being up. Arizona and Arizona State have fallen and risen like barometers in tornado weather. I really believe this is because the other teams in this conference serve to tear down the best. Every game out here is very bitterly fought. There are a few standout rivalries, of course (the Civil War in Oregon, the Apple Cup in Washington, the lengthy and well-documented Battle for LA), but the fact is there is a lot of enmity between one Pac-10 team and just about every other member of the conference.

Washington is a favorite of mine to look at in this respect. Yes, they hate Washington State because they share the same territory. But Washington fans almost hate Oregon more (I don't like Oregon fans, either, actually--you just have to hear stories about Oregon fans :) ). Washington doesn't like us at UCLA, because we keep beating them at the worst times (actually, we beat them in the best of times, too, even when they are very good--it's really very weird). Washington doesn't like USC because, well, no one likes USC, even when they suck (USC is like Notre Dame West out here). No one likes Stanford either, because they like to remind us they are smarter than we are, and their band is infamous for pulling off rage-inspriing opponent-insulting performances.

I know the SEC has its own tales of bitterness, of course, that stretches back aeons. This isn't an attempt to try and make one better than the other. This is just me trying to explain to those outside of Pac-10 territory just how much Pac-10 teams hate each other.

The parity and the bitterness combine to form a very difficult conference season each and every year, and also makes it very hard to predict just who will win. USC was a popular choice this year, but it is a rarity that the preseason favorite actually wins it all. The other team most often mentioned with USC this season was Washington. Ouch. Last year, Washington and Oregon were the picks, but it was Wazzu and USC on top. The year before that Oregon State and Washington were everyone's favorites, but Oregon came out of "nowhere" (from the national perspective) to contend for the national title, and Stanford was phenomenal (getting Ty Will his gig with the Irish). It never comes out like the "experts" expect it. I don't think I can come up with a better example of the scary parity of this conference than that.

So for that reason, I would argue that the inference by some in this thread that the Pac-10 might be a lesser conference (not you, GE, others) because they don't have a sustained dynastic champion, I would argue that is a particular reflection of the intricacies of this conference, and not really a true sign of the quality of the top programs out here.

Chief Rum

[Chief Rum]

dola,

For the record, I thought Bug was nuts to say USC would blow out LSU. No one blows out a very good defensive team like that.

Do I think LSU would lose to USC? Yes, I do. But that's just my opinion.

CR

[MrBug708]

61% to 38% (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19699)

Maybe not so many people on here think that

[Tigercat]

OU and LSU both have Ds better than Michigan and USC. You can not judge either teams offensive output by having a month off and suddenly playing one of the two best Ds in the nation. This is not comparable to having a month off and playing Michigans and USCs, this is on the next tier.

I think LSU would be able to score on USC, because I believe LSU's OLine could handle USCs Dline better than Michigan did. The xfactor of the whole game would be Bush coming out of the backfield for USC. Some people are talking about how bad White look, but didn't they see the shots of the LSU DBs? They were covering OUs WRs unbelievably well. With LSU's blitzes, however, if you can get a fast player with good hands out the backfield, you can make some big plays(see Florida and OUs misopporitunity near the endzone).

USC does not have a QB that can run away from the blitz, and although USC has great WRs, LSU has great DBs. I would think the game ends up being as close as the Sugar Bowl. IF USC gets Bush involved in the game, he is the difference in a 4-7 point win. If they can't get him involved enough, I think LSU takes the game.

As far as the rankings of teams and conferences...
We have a (relatively) unbiased way to rank these things. Computer polls. There are LOTS and LOTS of them. They do not take subjective(human) polls into account. Almost all of them said LSU had a better season than USC before the Sugar Bowl, and even more say that after the Sugar Bowl. All things considered USC MAY have the best team in the nation, but a 2 loss team could have the best team in the nation, LSU had the best season.

[MrBug708]

I can't for the life of me name an Oklahoma receiver and my team played Oklahoma this year. Mike Williams will be a Heisman contender next year and Leinart was the offensive poty in the PAC-10, so saying that LSU's DB's were able to stop Oklahoma's WR's doesn't say much because they are neither superior nor noteable. What makes USC so dangerous on offense is that everyone is willing to block, the WR's and the RB's especially, so the blitz wouldn't be effective because Norm Chow is god at the 3 step drop.

Like it was said, the computers picked LSU, the humans picked USC. We all know who actually can see a game. Coming from someone who hates USC with a passion, this is hard for me to say.

[Tigercat]

Oh and as far as how good the SEC is in football:

Since 1992:
The SEC has had 4 different national champions, no other conference has had more than 2(Big 12).

Since 1998:
Every SEC team BUT Vandy has played in a significant bowl, meaning the Cotton or Outback or better.

I would call that impressive.

[albionmoonlight]

First, if USC had lost later than LSU, then LSU would be ranked #1 by the voters. It really has little to do with who is the better team. I have no idea who is the better team.

Second, would people object to the "computer" rankings less if they were done by pencil and paper? There seems to be this idea that these semi-autonomous machines are making subjective judgments about college football despite the fact that they have never played a down in their lives. Kind of a man vs. machine thing going on.

In reality, all the computers are doing is the only thing computers can do--running programs that humans create. Some people believe/d that the polls are too subjective. They devised objective formulas to determine which teams are better than other teams based on the teams' on-field performance. Computers are used to process these formulas, but if they were not, the results would be the exact same.

One may have an objection to using inflexible, objective formulas to rank teams. That's fine. Just make sure that the objection is with the formulas and not based on some idea that humans know more about football than machines. It's really just subjective voters vs. objective voters.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by MrBug708
I can't for the life of me name an Oklahoma receiver and my team played Oklahoma this year. Mike Williams will be a Heisman contender next year and Leinart was the offensive poty in the PAC-10, so saying that LSU's DB's were able to stop Oklahoma's WR's doesn't say much because they are neither superior nor noteable. What makes USC so dangerous on offense is that everyone is willing to block, the WR's and the RB's especially, so the blitz wouldn't be effective because Norm Chow is god at the 3 step drop.

Like it was said, the computers picked LSU, the humans picked USC. We all know who actually can see a game. Coming from someone who hates USC with a passion, this is hard for me to say.

Umm, Mark Clayton anyone? He was an All American and up for numerous awards at WR. Not to get too personal, but if your own team played OU and you cant remember such a notable player, and you are claiming to have enough college football knowledge to say one team is better than the other, perhaps you are the perfect example why human voting can be very flawed.

LSU played tougher opponents and beat them by more points, how can one say that USC had the better year? The better team MAYBE, but the better YEAR? It makes no sense.

[MrBug708]

Not at all. Oklahoma didn't beat my team by offense because UCLA's D did a good job on Oklahoma. It was Antonio Perkins and Oklahoma's D that shut UCLA down.

[heybrad]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
In reality, all the computers are doing is the only thing computers can do--running programs that humans create. Some people believe/d that the polls are too subjective. They devised objective formulas to determine which teams are better than other teams based on the teams' on-field performance. Computers are used to process these formulas, but if they were not, the results would be the exact same.
This is a great post and somewhat leads to my view of the human vs. computer polls. The computers determine who played the best season. The humans are determining who they think the best team is. Those are 2 completely different things.

Take 4 teams:

New England Patriots
LSU
Oklahoma
Sisters of Mercy High School Girls Football Team

LSU and Oklahoma play the season they just played with the same results.

The Patriots play the S of M 12 or 13 times going unbeaten and winning every game 100 - 0.

Who had a better season based on their wins and strength of schedule... LSU

Who is cleary the best team of the group.... Patriots

They are 2 separate polls determining 2 separate things: Best season and best team.

Just my .02

[Noop]

Originally posted by JMoore1
All I have to say is NOOP shut up. Don't you play for Miami. We's warriors, we's warriors...please nigga maybe you should look into american history where the ndns were the true warriors...

Loser

Look at the scoreboard OU lost

[Ben E Lou]

Sorry I missed jmoore1's post. Noop, thanks for showing the restraint to edit your post. JMoore, a week in the box.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by heybrad

LSU and Oklahoma play the season they just played with the same results.

The Patriots play the S of M 12 or 13 times going unbeaten and winning every game 100 - 0.

Who had a better season based on their wins and strength of schedule... LSU

Who is cleary the best team of the group.... Patriots

They are 2 separate polls determining 2 separate things: Best season and best team.
Just my .02

Yup, and as an LSU fan, in many ways i dont have a problem with the Media voting and declaring USC the champs because they think they are the best team.

What I don't like is that they aren't talking about how, in their opinion, USC has the best team and not nessassarily the team that had the best season. LSU had the best season, which i think almost everyone with an unbiased opinion can admit.

I am glad that USC got half of the national championship, but it seems to me the team with the better season should get the lionshare of the props. But because USC is the media darlings, the percieved best team is getting most of the recognition. That is a shame, especially for the LSU players.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Not at all. Oklahoma didn't beat my team by offense because UCLA's D did a good job on Oklahoma. It was Antonio Perkins and Oklahoma's D that shut UCLA down.

Poor special teams by UCLA. What was your coach thinking when they kept kicking the ball to him?

[MrBug708]

The second time I can't blame him, because who really scores twice in a game. The third time, he was supposed to shank it, but he missed the shank and kicked it 50 yards

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Tigercat
OU and LSU both have Ds better than Michigan and USC. You can not judge either teams offensive output by having a month off and suddenly playing one of the two best Ds in the nation. This is not comparable to having a month off and playing Michigans and USCs, this is on the next tier.

While I would argue that the higher offensive output of the Pac-10 makes USC look worse here, I won't argue they are as good a defense as LSU. The Tigers were phenomenal this year. Just because Michigan is a level below Oklahoma's D, though, doesn't mean that their defense was insiginificant. And USC burned that defense in its bowl game crisply. If Carroll was a bastard, the score of that Rose Bowl game could and would have been much higher.

I think LSU would be able to score on USC, because I believe LSU's OLine could handle USCs Dline better than Michigan did. The xfactor of the whole game would be Bush coming out of the backfield for USC. Some people are talking about how bad White look, but didn't they see the shots of the LSU DBs? They were covering OUs WRs unbelievably well. With LSU's blitzes, however, if you can get a fast player with good hands out the backfield, you can make some big plays(see Florida and OUs misopporitunity near the endzone).

USC does not have a QB that can run away from the blitz, and although USC has great WRs, LSU has great DBs. I would think the game ends up being as close as the Sugar Bowl. IF USC gets Bush involved in the game, he is the difference in a 4-7 point win. If they can't get him involved enough, I think LSU takes the game.

I don't know if LSU's O-line could handle USC's D-line better than Michigan. That might be true. But is the difference between the two lines so much that you think LSU's line would manhandle USC's D-line? Because I gotta tell ya, if you think there is a line--any line--in NCAA football that was going to stop the Wild Bunch II, well, you haven't watched a USC game all year then. I know LSU has a very good line, but they would have been up against quite a bit of a test in that D-line.

Bug is right on about the Trojans' blocking schemes. They are very good at it. Blitzes can cause disruption, and I am sure with a defense like LSU's, they are very godo at it. But I wouldn't just assume LSU's excellent defensive backs would stay with USC's receivers. USC's receivers were the best such unit in the country. And the only thing Leinart lacked that White had was preseason hype. I'm not saying the Trojans would dominate LSU's D. I am saying that would be an exquisite matchup of two top units, and I sense in some of the things you're saying a lack of real knowledge about the quality of USC's offensive unit. For all the problems offenses have coming off of a month off, USC didn't have much trouble with their offense in the Rose Bowl, did they?

All that said, I more or less agree and your last statement. I don't know if Bush would be the factor, but he would certainly be a big one, what with him likely being open underneath from blitzes (and if you don't think Leinart won't find him in three-steps, well...). The 4-7 point difference sounds about right. I have no doubt LSU-USC would be a tight, exciting game.

As far as the rankings of teams and conferences...
We have a (relatively) unbiased way to rank these things. Computer polls. There are LOTS and LOTS of them. They do not take subjective(human) polls into account. Almost all of them said LSU had a better season than USC before the Sugar Bowl, and even more say that after the Sugar Bowl. All things considered USC MAY have the best team in the nation, but a 2 loss team could have the best team in the nation, LSU had the best season.

Agreed that computer polls are more objective. But they also only get what you program into them. And in the end it is a human programmer that is punching in the weights for the various factors the computers. How important each factor or what factors are even chosen to use is a critical part of developing such programs and are more or less completely subjective. In other words, the stats are objective. How the stats are used is subjective. That subjectivity is as likely to be flawed as human polls.

And say what you want about computers, but there is another level the human mind is at in acquiring this information and judging it than from a computer. The human mind is a wonderful thing, because it is much better at guaging the whole picture, even registering things the conciosu mind doesn't notice. It takes that and the bad (the biases, the inability to be truly objective) and spits out a result. I'm not enough of a neurologist or neural net programmer to know which way--the limited picture, more objective computer way, or the whole picture, subjective human way--is more accurate, but I would just note that the computers being in LSU's favor is only about as equal in mind as the fact USC is ranked higher in the human polls. Basically, they both get equal points off of that from me.

Also, as has been noted, a computer might tell you, given certain stats, that LSU had the best season, and I am not one of the ones arguing USC should be in the Sugar Bowl (and if they were it would be over Oklahoma, not LSU). But are we not trying to measure who is the best team, or who would win a matchup between the two? That's an entirely different matter, and I am not sure computers are the based way to do that.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Tigercat
Oh and as far as how good the SEC is in football:

Since 1992:
The SEC has had 4 different national champions, no other conference has had more than 2(Big 12).

Since 1998:
Every SEC team BUT Vandy has played in a significant bowl, meaning the Cotton or Outback or better.

I would call that impressive.

We have gone over ad nauseum the difficulties facing a Pac-10 team to claim a national title. That said, no one is claiming the SEC is worse than the Pac-10 in this thread. In fact, everyone is pretty much saying SEC represents at least equal to the best of the best, if not the best overall football in the country. Most of the discussion on that sclae has related to the lack of respect the Pac-10 is getting.

As for your second claim, that's not all that impressive when you realize that the SEC has no less than five New Year's Day Bowl tie-ins (BCS/Sugar traditionally, Capital One, Cotton, Outback, Peach). The Pac-10? One (the BCS/Rose). Gee, no bias there.

BTW, startting from New Year's Day Bowls still ignores a key bowl or two that I would put up in their range. One of those is the Holiday Bowl, matching the #2 PAC and #3 B-12 teams. I would say that is at least on par with the Peach or the Outback, even if it isn't played on New Year's Day.

Including BCS and the Holiday, every team in the Pac-10 except Arizona and Cal has also made it to a "significant" bowl, and that is with just one New Year's Day tie-in! I would say that is a bit more impressive than getting at least 11 teams to finish fifth in the SEC in five seasons.

That is also an indication of the parity and volatitlity of the Pac-10 that I referenced before in previous posts.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
First, if USC had lost later than LSU, then LSU would be ranked #1 by the voters. It really has little to do with who is the better team. I have no idea who is the better team.

No doubt, you're right. What you're doing in excusing that fact, though, is wrong. Losing later in the season is a factor, because teams are supposed to get better as the season goes along. So losing later is penalized. So rather than argue the hypothetical of what if LSU lost later, you should instead be noting that the fact USC lost before LSU is a factor in USC's favor and not one to be ignored.

Second, would people object to the "computer" rankings less if they were done by pencil and paper? There seems to be this idea that these semi-autonomous machines are making subjective judgments about college football despite the fact that they have never played a down in their lives. Kind of a man vs. machine thing going on.

In reality, all the computers are doing is the only thing computers can do--running programs that humans create. Some people believe/d that the polls are too subjective. They devised objective formulas to determine which teams are better than other teams based on the teams' on-field performance. Computers are used to process these formulas, but if they were not, the results would be the exact same.

One may have an objection to using inflexible, objective formulas to rank teams. That's fine. Just make sure that the objection is with the formulas and not based on some idea that humans know more about football than machines. It's really just subjective voters vs. objective voters.

I have already sai something about this. No one is arguing there isn't some objectivity in the computing process, which is lacking in the human process.

But those computers are programmed by subjective humans that choose the formulae and weight the factors on completely subjective methods. How do the computer programmers know any better what is the best formula for determining what teh best team is? They are no better than the writers and coaches int hat respect.

No one is arguing the objectivity of the stats. They are what they are. But anyone who thinks the formulae on completely objective, or that the computer somehow gets more of the picture than the human mind is fooling themselves.

We haven't advanced enough in computer science for computers to surpass humanity in this judgement level.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Tigercat
Umm, Mark Clayton anyone? He was an All American and up for numerous awards at WR. Not to get too personal, but if your own team played OU and you cant remember such a notable player, and you are claiming to have enough college football knowledge to say one team is better than the other, perhaps you are the perfect example why human voting can be very flawed.

LSU played tougher opponents and beat them by more points, how can one say that USC had the better year? The better team MAYBE, but the better YEAR? It makes no sense.

I watched Mark Clayton in a number of games this year. Mike Williams is better. Just thought I woudl throw that out. I know this post was aimed at Bug and not me.

LSU's SOS was 29th and USC's was 37th. Not exactly a big difference, is it? And USC didn't play any OOC creampuffs or Div !-AA teams did it?

BTW, the average margin of victory favors LSU by a very slight margin, 22.9 ppg to 22.6 ppg by USC. Whiel your point is technically true, I hardly think a difference in 8 ranking spots on the SOS and 0.3 points in margin of victory is really all that significant. If just one or two close Pac-10 losses bounced the other way, or if one USC opponent scored one less touchdown, then these stats might then go against LSU. That's how close it is.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Tigercat
Yup, and as an LSU fan, in many ways i dont have a problem with the Media voting and declaring USC the champs because they think they are the best team.

What I don't like is that they aren't talking about how, in their opinion, USC has the best team and not nessassarily the team that had the best season. LSU had the best season, which i think almost everyone with an unbiased opinion can admit.

I am glad that USC got half of the national championship, but it seems to me the team with the better season should get the lionshare of the props. But because USC is the media darlings, the percieved best team is getting most of the recognition. That is a shame, especially for the LSU players.

I disagree. I believe that championships are supposed to go the best teams. The belief is that championships do go to the best teams. Here, we have a split national championship. It makes sense than for people to argue which is the better team, to assess just who is the real national champion.

I think USC has the better team, so they should be the real champs. But that's just my opinion.

CR

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I think USC has the better team, so they should be the real champs. But that's just my opinion.

CR

You can't really argue that though, because in a year like last year, there are still quite a number of people who believe Miami was a better team than Ohio State, but there is no question Ohio State deserved to be national champs. So there is another factor in there other than who is the best team, and it is how the team performed this year. If you look at the NFL, when a wild-card team wins the Super Bowl, it would be hard to argue they were the best team all season long, but they are the Super Bowl Champions.

[Chief Rum]

Actually, I can. The assumption is that the best team wins the championships. This year, we have two champions. They won't play. Whichever is the best team, then, is the matter of opinion. My opinion is that USC is the better team and the more deserving champion.

That doesn't work last year, because there was no argument that the top two teams weren't represented in the Fiesta Bowl. Both the polls and the computers/BCS rankings had Ohio State on top after they beat Miami.

You can certainly make an argument for what team has the most talent and ability (and many would say last year Miami was that team), but you can't call them the best team. Because they didn't win it all.

CR

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Actually, I can. The assumption is that the best team wins the championships. This year, we have two champions. They won't play. Whichever is the best team, then, is the matter of opinion. My opinion is that USC is the better team and the more deserving champion.
CR

Ah yes, but lets assume you are unbiased observer coming to this conclusion, like an AP voter(because I have no reason to believe you are not one.) It is very likely, keeping in mind that I don't know your opinion on this subject, that you and the majority of unbiased individuals would have thought Miami was the better team if they had not played Ohio State. It is near impossible to objectively know which of two such teams are better without playing them on the field. So should not the team with the best season be considered the team most deserving, or are you that sure of your opinion on who is better? And can you be that sure of your opinion given that LSU played a tougher schedule and faired better?(won by more points, all be it as you mentioned not by a large margin over USC)

[Easy Mac]

I think LSU has the best defense in the country and USC has the best offense.

Therefore, they both are the top team in the league.

And if you compare common opponents:
USC:
beat Auburn 23-0 (23 points)
beat Arizona 45-0 (45)

LSU:
beat Auburn 31-7 (24)
beat Arizona 59-13 (46)

Therefore, LSU is about 2 points better, but nothing I would take bets on, so the two are practically even.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Tigercat
Ah yes, but lets assume you are unbiased observer coming to this conclusion, like an AP voter(because I have no reason to believe you are not one.) It is very likely, keeping in mind that I don't know your opinion on this subject, that you and the majority of unbiased individuals would have thought Miami was the better team if they had not played Ohio State. It is near impossible to objectively know which of two such teams are better without playing them on the field. So should not the team with the best season be considered the team most deserving, or are you that sure of your opinion on who is better? And can you be that sure of your opinion given that LSU played a tougher schedule and faired better?(won by more points, all be it as you mentioned not by a large margin over USC)

No, I think the team I think is the best should be the champion. BTW, Miami was acknowledged as the team that had the best season last year leading up to the national title game, so they would have been the choice anyway, by your reasoning.

If last year's game wasn't played and Miami was given the national championship, we really have no reason to think that was wrong. There is no way to prove it. As I have said from the beginning, it comes down to opinion.

We would have been wrong in that case, because Miami went on to lose to Ohio State. But if the game were not ever going to be played, how could we know that?

You seem to want to challenge my opinion on this basis, but in reality, your stance is no stronger than mine. Neither you nor I know who would win a matchup between LSU and USC. We must rely on our opinions. And you're just going to have to deal with the fact that I (and a strong majority of the FOFC crowd here, it seems) believe USC would beat LSU and is the better team.

I really think you're best off accepting that not everyone is going to agree with you on this one, and there is really no way to prove right or wrong in this situation.

CR

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by IMetTrentGreen
the reason no one lisdtens to you, cjeif rum, is that all those stats and crap you list are meaningless and out of context

usc and arizona of the 90s are they only two really good defenses that league has seen, no matter what the stats say. its offense then defense out there, and has been for some time

You're missing an obvious one here - Washington played outstanding defense in 1990 and 1991 and was very good in 1992. They were good through the mid-'90's under Jim Lambright but faded as the flaws of the 46 defense he favored were exposed and the talent level declined, and Neuheisel's teams were rarely better than average on defense.

If Washington is to become a Pac-10 contender again Phil Snow will need to return to the strong defensive play Washington was known for under Don James (with Jim Lambright as DC).

[DanGarion]

Originally posted by MrBug708
52 points, is a lot of points in college football

Not when it's one of those SEC teams beating up on small schools. Or Nebraska doing the same thing.

Also I'm just basking in the fact that both CR and Bug are saying how much they like USC... ;)

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I think LSU has the best defense in the country and USC has the best offense.

Therefore, they both are the top team in the league.

And if you compare common opponents:
USC:
beat Auburn 23-0 (23 points)
beat Arizona 45-0 (45)

LSU:
beat Auburn 31-7 (24)
beat Arizona 59-13 (46)

Therefore, LSU is about 2 points better, but nothing I would take bets on, so the two are practically even.

Easy Mazc, you have USC as the best offense and LSU as the best D, yet the scores you show have USC having two shutouts and LSU scoring more points?

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by dangarion
Not when it's one of those SEC teams beating up on small schools. Or Nebraska doing the same thing.

Also I'm just basking in the fact that both CR and Bug are saying how much they like USC... ;)


How are those RWBL Padres doing my friend?

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Actually, I can. The assumption is that the best team wins the championships.

There are two different things - the best team and the champion. And the way it is set up in college football right now, the final polls are to determine a champion. It is almost impossible to determine who the best team is (You think it's USC, I think it's LSU, but both positions are reasonable), but you can crown a champion, so the polls try to do this. The Coaches Poll automatically crowns the winner of the BCS Title Game, which follows strict guidelines, if not a format, similar to a tournament, while the AP Poll crowns who exactly? I saw an article in USA Today the day after USC won proclaiming that their #1 ranking would be safe and some of the quotes and statistics were interesting. One along the lines of 'I'm sticking with USC because they were #1 and they didn't lose, and that's how the polls work.' Also, all but 1 of the double-digit USC voters they had contacted said they were positively going to cast their vote for USC regardless of the outcome of the Sugar Bowl. The gap between all 3 teams was so small that if OU or LSU had blown out the other like 56-0, that team probably should have garnered a majority of the votes, or at least consideration for #1 but they wouldn't have. Just like in '97 when the Coaches took it upon themselves to remove the #1 team in their poll (Michigan) despite a convincing victory and replace them with Nebraska because they felt Nebraska deserved a share of the national title. Most people that year (and quite possibly a majority of the voters in the coaches poll) felt Michigan was the better team, but they did not win the national championship.

Basically, this was much longer than it probably needed to be, but I just think that your assumption of Best Team=Champion is flawed.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Easy Mazc, you have USC as the best offense and LSU as the best D, yet the scores you show have USC having two shutouts and LSU scoring more points?

I think it goes to show that neither team is a one trick pony. I think media experts that think that LSU's performance against Oklahoma is indicitive of the LSU offense are sorely mistaken. If they want to see how good LSU can be scoring-wise, they should look at the SECCG. The game was pretty much a game AT Georgia, against a Georgia deffense that was one of the top 5 in the nation, and LSU did almost anything they wanted. After Kansas State's performance against Oklahoma, it was perhaps the best performance by an offense against a top level D all year.(although I am not silly enough to claim we have a better scoring attack than USC)

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
There are two different things - the best team and the champion. And the way it is set up in college football right now, the final polls are to determine a champion. It is almost impossible to determine who the best team is (You think it's USC, I think it's LSU, but both positions are reasonable), but you can crown a champion, so the polls try to do this. The Coaches Poll automatically crowns the winner of the BCS Title Game, which follows strict guidelines, if not a format, similar to a tournament, while the AP Poll crowns who exactly? I saw an article in USA Today the day after USC won proclaiming that their #1 ranking would be safe and some of the quotes and statistics were interesting. One along the lines of 'I'm sticking with USC because they were #1 and they didn't lose, and that's how the polls work.' Also, all but 1 of the double-digit USC voters they had contacted said they were positively going to cast their vote for USC regardless of the outcome of the Sugar Bowl. The gap between all 3 teams was so small that if OU or LSU had blown out the other like 56-0, that team probably should have garnered a majority of the votes, or at least consideration for #1 but they wouldn't have. Just like in '97 when the Coaches took it upon themselves to remove the #1 team in their poll (Michigan) despite a convincing victory and replace them with Nebraska because they felt Nebraska deserved a share of the national title. Most people that year (and quite possibly a majority of the voters in the coaches poll) felt Michigan was the better team, but they did not win the national championship.

Basically, this was much longer than it probably needed to be, but I just think that your assumption of Best Team=Champion is flawed.

I'm setting out from the assumption that the best team is the one that won it on the field. We can discuss for days just about every championship in every major sport, and you can always have a debate about what team is actually the best team. That's not the discussion I am trying to have, which is why I said I was starting from the general assumption that the best team wins, and the champion wins all, so the champion is the best team, regardless of how you feel about talent or how the team got there.

And my further point proceeding from there is that we have two champions in college football that are not and will never meet in their current forms. They cannot decide this on the field. So we are left with our opinions, with neither side truly provable.

Opening up the can of worms about best team = champion is a much deeper discussion and might end up having us saying Oklahoma actually was the best team (best scoring offense, best defense by yardage), which would just seem odd coming off their performance in the pasttwo games, don't you think? That's just a huge discussion that I think gets away from what I was driving at.

CR

[MrBug708]

Speaking of which, when did we lose the CFB forum?

[Chief Rum]

I think it was around the time FOF 2004 came out, when the folders were reorganized into what they are now.

CR