How many Pac-10 teams are even going to make it to a bowl

[wildcat2334]

wildcat, I'm saying that those teams wouldn't struggle to beat a crappy team like Cal. Cal just isn't that good. I bring up the SEC teams, because all of those teams have better defenses than Oregon, IMO, can Cam ran circles around them. Once agian wildcat, consider this a courtasy, so you don't fall into the same trap you fell into last year, which I can see is a futile effort on my part. I'm just making a prediction, and for your sake I hope I'm wrong.

 

Auburn will destroy Oregon if they play. It's really not gonna be pretty. Certainly not as silly as saying Oregon will destroy Ohio State.

 

BTW, Pac 10 jealousy is pretty funny. You didn't disappoint me wildcat, you keep right on coming with the jokes.

 

31st time yu brought up last years Rose Bowl- well done! sticking to 2010/2011......

 

wow destroy huh? what is this based on exactly? would love to hear it

 

I am a hugh SEC fan - love it, the atmosphere at the UGA/Aub game was frigging awesome, BUT you couldn't be more wrong about SEC defenses this year - , in fact the only realy GOOD defenses in the SEC are LSU and Bama - the rest not so much........

 

and ur not giving Cal enough credit - they are a talented but schizo team -

 

current ranking on your list of defenses that according to you are so much better than Oregon........

 

LSU - 5 -

MSU - 43

USC - 50

Ark - 31

UGA - 24

 

ORE - 20

AUB- 51

 

and fwiw - that "crappy" CAL team has the 10th best defense in the country.......

 

u were saying?

[detlef]

wildcat, I'm saying that those teams wouldn't struggle to beat a crappy team like Cal. Cal just isn't that good. I bring up the SEC teams, because all of those teams have better defenses than Oregon, IMO, can Cam ran circles around them. Once agian wildcat, consider this a courtasy, so you don't fall into the same trap you fell into last year, which I can see is a futile effort on my part. I'm just making a prediction, and for your sake I hope I'm wrong.

 

Auburn will destroy Oregon if they play. It's really not gonna be pretty. Certainly not as silly as saying Oregon will destroy Ohio State.

 

BTW, Pac 10 jealousy is pretty funny. You didn't disappoint me wildcat, you keep right on coming with the jokes.

FWIW, Oregon is ranked 20th in D, Auburn is 51st. LSU is significantly better at #5 overall and Florida and Bama are allowing a whopping 13 and 9 yards per game less than Oregon (ranking 11th and 14th respectively). Cal, BTW is 10th.

 

Now, I understand that ypg is not everything but it's something. And when you consider how little truly comparable data we get in these arguments, you can't ignore the little nuggets that are out there. I mean, it beats the hell out of just swinging one's dick around and saying, "It's true because I say it's true."

 

What should also be noted is that, despite leading the country in points scored per game, Oregon is 103rd in time of possession because they score so quickly. That means their D is on the field a lot but not in a bad way. So, if anything, ypg is unfairly misleading against Oregon because their D is on the field an inordinate amount of time for a winning team. If one could could factor yards per minute (which would only make sense if a team is actually winning games) then Oregon would most certainly be ranked higher. And before anyone thinks taking it to this level is, in any way making excuses for Oregon's D, understand that it's not like they're anything to be ashamed of without taking the time of possession into account.

 

Defensive rankings

 

Time of possession

[Living the Dream]

 

 

Yea, lets not let the facts get in the way of a twisted argument. these pac-10 clowns dont have a clue about football. Hell just what he wrote compared to the game, and box score for that matter prove 99% of these posts are utter nonsense.

 

 

And this post was created to discuss how many teams in this great conference are even going to go to a bowl. right now, only 3, and my take the best this conference can do in those bowls is 1-2, another losing record this yr as well.

[detlef]

Have not commented in this thread yet, but have read all the post. So let me take the role of the judge on ESPN that rules in favor of Lou Holtz and/or Mark May.

 

Sorry Wildcat don't take this the wrong way because you often make a good case, but in this thread Living the Dream has actually presented a much more compelling case. And remember early in the season I thought the Pac 10 was playing the best football, but as the season plays out it certainly has changed my opinion of the PAC10. Granted the Pac 10 has played a decent ooc schedule but keep in mind in most cases they lost those games, so it's hard to give them too much credit.

Here's the thing.

 

1) The initial argument is that the Pac 10 must suck because it has so few teams that will make a bowl. But that argument is very much weakened by the reality that the Pac 10 has played the hardest OOC schedule of any other conference. And this has nothing to do with whom Stanford or Oregon has played (which I will get to in a minute). What it does have everything to do with is how many cheap wins the conference deprived itself by 1) scheduling legit OOC games and 2) scheduling one more conference game.

 

Living in Sgt Brent's Dream can jump up and down all he wants and say OSU sucks but that doesn't change the fact that they could very likely be 6-3 if they traded TCU and BSU for two crappy teams. That they stepped on their dicks against WSU doesn't automatically mean they'd do so against an Idaho or New Mexico or Directional State U.

 

As for scheduling another conference game. Sure, that means you play the last place team in your conference. Then again, most teams play that team anyway, even if you don't play everyone. But playing everyone means everyone plays Oregon and Stanford and USC rather than possibly trading one of those games in for some BS team from the Patriot league.

 

So, both of these things absolutely have an effect on how many teams are bowl eligible. Arguing otherwise is simply folly. This doesn't mean the Pac 10 is the strongest conference per se (and frankly, I don't believe it is. I think the SEC, even in down years, is typically the strongest conference in the nation). However it is certainly a massive, massive blow to the point that, since the Pac 10 may only have 3 bowl teams, they must suck.

 

Now, as for the bit about Stanford and OU not being the ones who've carried the torch in terms of the Pac 10's relatively harder OOC schedule than any other conference. That would be a great argument, but for one very major flaw. No other conference leaders have played anyone OOC either. Well, other than V Tech, but I'm assuming that we're not considering the ACC in the conversation of who the best conference is. And you can't break down someone without suggesting who is better. Again, if not them, then whom? Unless the argument is that everyone sucks, which is sort of pointless.

Edited November 17, 2010 by detlef

[wildcat2334]

 

 

did u watch the game? ASU shot themselves in the foot time and time again - they had a kickoff return tackled at the 1 yard line as time expired in the first half, and there was an absolutely brutal non PI call in the end zone.

 

a loss is a loss, but you couldn't help but watch that game and come away thinking ASU blew it, and was the better team that day, with better athletes......

 

have to point it out since evidently a 3 point win on the road in conference against a top ranked defense negates you as a legit national titel contender

[Rockerbraves]

Now, as for the bit about Stanford and OU not being the ones who've carried the torch in terms of the Pac 10's relatively harder OOC schedule than any other conference. That would be a great argument, but for one very major flaw. No other conference leaders have played anyone OOC either. Well, other than V Tech, but I'm assuming that we're not considering the ACC in the conversation of who the best conference is. And you can't break down someone without suggesting who is better. Again, if not them, then whom? Unless the argument is that everyone sucks, which is sort of pointless.

So you arn't impressed that LSU scheduled North Carolina and West Virginia? Both are 6-3 not counting the LSU game.

[detlef]

So you arn't impressed that LSU scheduled North Carolina and West Virginia? Both are 6-3 not counting the LSU game.

Well, it's not shabby but neither is ranked. Of course, you can't blame LSU for the fact that these teams aren't any better. UNC should have been really, really solid if they actually got to use those guys on D. That said, you can't point to it as an example as an elite SEC team proving itself against a top-notch OOC team.

 

And, no, I'm not impressed by OSU beating a decent but hardly impressive Miami team either. Again, it's Miami, not Duke, but it's still nothing you can point to as a defining win.

[Living the Dream]

did u watch the game? ASU shot themselves in the foot time and time again - they had a kickoff return tackled at the 1 yard line as time expired in the first half, and there was an absolutely brutal non PI call in the end zone.

 

a loss is a loss, but you couldn't help but watch that game and come away thinking ASU blew it, and was the better team that day, with better athletes......

 

have to point it out since evidently a 3 point win on the road in conference against a top ranked defense negates you as a legit national titel contender

 

 

ASU was dominated in every statistical category on the field, rushing, TOP, passing, first downs, everything. The XP was blocked and didnt hit the upright like you said. And bad calls happen every week in every game, what makes this one brutal, because you said so. ASU scored the final time it had the ball, and Wisky ran out the final 4:09 of the clock to preserve the win. The only way ASU was even in the game because of poor tackling on special teams that led to a TD, and almost another TD. You sure can twist the facts with complete crap cant you. And you are saying ASU has better athletes than Wisky. you are just a joke.

[Living the Dream]

Well, it's not shabby but neither is ranked. Of course, you can't blame LSU for the fact that these teams aren't any better. UNC should have been really, really solid if they actually got to use those guys on D. That said, you can't point to it as an example as an elite SEC team proving itself against a top-notch OOC team.

 

And, no, I'm not impressed by OSU beating a decent but hardly impressive Miami team either. Again, it's Miami, not Duke, but it's still nothing you can point to as a defining win.

 

 

And 5-8 yrs ago, when Org St scheduled TCU and Boise, they thought either of those would be what they are today. Luck turned out those 2 were good this yr. But back then, neither had a track record of being anything close than they are today.

 

 

sure you should be rewarded for beating quality opponents, but when you get your ass kicked in the games, and lose. You shouldnt be rewarded because you played someone from a non major conference and they beat your ass . SOS should come into play when you beat teams to determine undefeated and 1 or 2 loss teams for ranking. Not when you are 4-6, and likely will finish 4-8 and lose 5 straight to end the season.

[Living the Dream]

and what if the pac-10 goes 0-3 or 1-2 in those only 3 bowls. All year long we will have heard this pac-10 envy crap only to prove what this conference proved last yr going 2-4 in bowls. Well actually not 2-4, they wont have anywhere close to 6 teams in bowl games this yr. And it will never end. Even if this conference goes 0-3 in bowls, next yr it will be the same ole clowns pimping the Pac-10, saying bowl games are over rated, while early non conference games are what makes this conference so great, even when the pac-10 is exposed in most of those quality non conference games.

[wildcat2334]

So you arn't impressed that LSU scheduled North Carolina and West Virginia? Both are 6-3 not counting the LSU game.

 

definitely 2 legit non conference games IMO

 

wish the rest of the SEC would take note

[detlef]

And 5-8 yrs ago, when Org St scheduled TCU and Boise, they thought either of those would be what they are today. Luck turned out those 2 were good this yr. But back then, neither had a track record of being anything close than they are today.

 

 

sure you should be rewarded for beating quality opponents, but when you get your ass kicked in the games, and lose. You shouldnt be rewarded because you played someone from a non major conference and they beat your ass . SOS should come into play when you beat teams to determine undefeated and 1 or 2 loss teams for ranking. Not when you are 4-6, and likely will finish 4-8 and lose 5 straight to end the season.

Who's rewarding OSU? Again, you started this by pointing to the small number of Pac 10 teams that are likely going to bowls. Then you showed how many were from other conferences. Note, you didn't bother to say how many of those teams would be eligible if they traded two cakewalk OOC games for two games against top 5 teams (and quite possibly another if OSU wouldn't have had to play Stanford this year had they not played the entire conference).

 

So, the point was and remains that there's a very, very good argument for why counting bowl eligible teams is simply not a fair criteria when judging the Pac 10. And that being that they traded in easy wins against sub-par teams for a legit OOC schedule and an additional conference game. That they lost most of those games only makes the argument better. Nobody is judging any other conference by how their average teams did against the nation's elite, so why should that be an indictment of the Pac 10?

 

ETA: And another thing. Enough with this whole bit about how good the teams were when the schedule was made. Sure, it's a fine excuse if someone is talking chight about how a team schedules and one of their OOC games is against a team that should have been good but just happened to suck that year. But that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Regardless of how good TCU and BSU were when OSU scheduled them, they were both certainly good when they played them. And in the context of a discussion explaining why OSU could have 6 wins if they played the sort of OOC schedule most BSC schools play, it is absolutely relevant how good those teams are this year.

Edited November 17, 2010 by detlef

[theprofessor]

Who's rewarding OSU? Again, you started this by pointing to the small number of Pac 10 teams that are likely going to bowls. Then you showed how many were from other conferences. Note, you didn't bother to say how many of those teams would be eligible if they traded two cakewalk OOC games for two games against top 5 teams (and quite possibly another if OSU wouldn't have had to play Stanford this year had they not played the entire conference).

 

So, the point was and remains that there's a very, very good argument for why counting bowl eligible teams is simply not a fair criteria when judging the Pac 10. And that being that they traded in easy wins against sub-par teams for a legit OOC schedule and an additional conference game. That they lost most of those games only makes the argument better. Nobody is judging any other conference by how their average teams did against the nation's elite, so why should that be an indictment of the Pac 10?

 

Stop it!! You're making way too much sense for LTD, er Boomer Sooner, er Brent, er Dallas Sooner, er .... whatever? And as we all know there will be more than 3 Pac-10 teams in bowl games this year. Yes, the PAC-10 struggled in bowl games last year but LTD, BS, B,DS, whoever he is, fails to point out that the Pac-10 was 5-0 the previous year So many intangibles go into bowl game results that I'm not sold that the results mean that much most of the time. Heck, that same year that the Pac-10 was the only conference to go undefeated in bowl games they were 1-6 against teams from the Mountain West

Edited November 17, 2010 by theprofessor

[SEC=UGA]

definitely 2 legit non conference games IMO

 

wish the rest of the SEC would take note

 

In the past decade SEC teams have played many legit OOC games:

UGA - Okie State, Arizona State, Colorado (not great but still a major conference team), GT, Clemson, BSU

Auburn - USC, GT, Wash St., Kan St., S. Fl, W. VA,

LSU - VT, Zona, Ore. St., Zona St., Washington

Bama - Penn St., VT, Clemson, Oklahoma

Florida - FSU, Miami, Hawaii, USF,

Ark - Tx A&M, TX, USC,

 

I'm not going to list all of the teams, but there is a sampling. THese are some pretty impressive matchups for OOC teams.

 

ETA - and no these werem't just 1 game, many of these teams were played multiple times in different seasons.

Edited November 17, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[untateve]

This year, Florida has played:

 

#5 LSU

#11 Alabama

#17 S Carolina

 

and we'll play #25 FSU. (out of conference; our other out of conference games are a joke)

 

 

Auburn has played:

 

#5 LSU

#13 Arkansas

 

And they'll play #11 Alabama; #17 S Carolina

 

LSU has played

#2 Auburn

#11 Alabama

#13 Arkansas

 

Florida, GA, Tenn are all down.

 

I'm not sure why, in the present system, SEC teams want to add ranked out of conference opponents.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

First of all, what constitutes a quality opponent (I would say win, but the Pac 10 has exactly 1 quality win ooc by everyones account)? My definition could be different than others. Is it only ranked wins? So Arizona State gets credit for playing Wisconsin, but Wisconsin doesn't get credit for beating Arizona State. But we're supposed to believe that Arizona State WOULD be good if they didn't have to play Wisconsin. So by definition, wouldn't that be a quality WIN for the Badgers? I don't care what you do OOC, if you lose. It doesn't make a difference. Arizona State simply isn't a very good team, but by god, they played Top 10 Wisconsin really well. Miami went on the road and played Ohio State. Ohio State drilled them. Is that a quality opponent for Ohio State?

 

The point is, bowl eligibility is like batting .200 in baseball. It isn't hard to be bowl eligible no matter what your non-conference schedule is. Arizona State isn't a good team. They are below average. Once again, name me a team in the last 20 years that won 5 or less games that you would consider good, and I will laugh in your face. Iowa went OOC on the road, lost, and still managed to get themselves bowl eligible, but somehow we're supposed to believe these Pac 10 teams with sub-.500 records are REALLY good, because by golly wildcat watches a lot of football and told us so. There are a lot of teams that do get to that 6 win mark, that aren't good, but what does that say about a team that gets 5 or less? Sorry but numbers don't lie.

Edited November 18, 2010 by GWPFFL BrianW

[detlef]

First of all, what constitutes a quality opponent (I would say win, but the Pac 10 has exactly 1 quality win ooc by everyones account)? My definition could be different than others. Is it only ranked wins? So Arizona State gets credit for playing Wisconsin, but Wisconsin doesn't get credit for beating Arizona State. But we're supposed to believe that Arizona State WOULD be good if they didn't have to play Wisconsin. So by definition, wouldn't that be a quality WIN for the Badgers? I don't care what you do OOC, if you lose. It doesn't make a difference. Arizona State simply isn't a very good team, but by god, they played Top 10 Wisconsin really well. Miami went on the road and played Ohio State. Ohio State drilled them. Is that a quality opponent for Ohio State?

 

The point is, bowl eligibility is like batting .200 in baseball. It isn't hard to be bowl eligible no matter what your non-conference schedule is. Arizona State isn't a good team. They are below average. Once again, name me a team in the last 20 years that won 5 or less games that you would consider good, and I will laugh in your face. Iowa went OOC on the road, lost, and still managed to get themselves bowl eligible, but somehow we're supposed to believe these Pac 10 teams with sub-.500 records are REALLY good, because by golly wildcat watches a lot of football and told us so. There are a lot of teams that do get to that 6 win mark, that aren't good, but what does that say about a team that gets 5 or less? Sorry but numbers don't lie.

Brian, once again. This whole thing got started when what's his face started some BS argument that, since the Pac 10 was only sending 3-4 teams to bowls, they must suck. Go back and read the first post. That's it. Now, first of all, it's a loaded point because USC doesn't get to go to a bowl, so it's really 4-5 bowl caliber teams which all of a sudden doesn't look so bad especially since they're the smallest of the BCS conferences. However, this point is even further undermined when you consider the relatively more difficult schedule all Pac 10 teams play by 1) playing everyone in their conference and 2) playing a more difficult OOC schedule than other conferences.

 

Everything else you're saying above is in response to pretend arguments. No, ASU is not a good team. But they're not that bad either and they would likely be one of those middling bowl teams had they not played as tough a schedule. Because of the fact that they play an extra conference game (which, yes, could be WSU, but could also be Oregon, who knows which one they wouldn't have to play) and the fact that one of their OOC games was a top 10 team, they have at least one more loss than they would had they scheduled some cupcake. I mean, look at four of their losses. They have a 1 pt loss to top 10 Wisc, a 4 pt loss to top 10 Stanford, a 1 pt loss to top 20 USC, and hung with #1 OU reasonably well. There's 4 teams on their schedule, 3 of whom should beat basically anyone in the country, 1 of whom should beat all but 20 teams in the country. And they still have top 20 AZ waiting. Would an easier schedule make them a better team? Certainly not, but it would put them one game closer to the all-important bowl status that I Dream of Sgt seems to covet so. Same story with OSU. So, now we'd could be talking 6-7 bowl caliber teams and now the argument looks as dumb as it really is.

 

Honestly, the Pac 10 should reconsider its policy on scheduling because it's bad for business. Because it's costing the average teams trips to bowls. Now, if you ask me, 6 win teams shouldn't be rewarded with bowls and we have too many. But that's another topic.

 

Frankly, what makes this topic even more lame is the fact that the Pac 10 shouldn't have to explain itself to anyone. They've got enough presence at the top (Ore and Stan), 2 more very solid to 20ish teams in AZ and USC, and a next tier that is good enough that you can't sleep on them (ASU and OSU). Honestly, that stacks up against basically anyone save the SEC. It certainly puts them heads and shoulders above the ACC and Big East. If the Big 10 or 12 wants to argue otherwise, that's fine but it's not like either can make a compelling argument that their conferences body of work is absolutely better.

Edited November 18, 2010 by detlef

[wildcat2334]

certainly something to the extra conference game and tough non conference scheduling. Personally I like the way the Pac 10 sacks up and could care less if they miss out on some crap bowl games. from Ivan Maisel.....

 

During my chat Wednesday, someone asked if the Pac-10’s decision to play a nine-game, round-robin schedule had cost the league at least one bowl bid. My colleague Ted Miller projects that only four league schools will qualify for the league’s seven bowl berths. Yes, had the league played only eight conference games, teams like UCLA, Oregon State and Arizona State might have scheduled another win. Are schedule strength and ticket sales worth endangering a bowl bid? I think the Pac-10 comes out ahead.

 

no one is claiming ASU is a good team, but I think as about the 7th best team they illustrate perfectly the depth of the conference.....

 

1 point L to Wisky

3 pt L to Stanford

giving Oregon all they can handle

 

playoff would be money, yet again.

 

top 8

 

Oregon vs Neb

Aub vs Wisky

TCU vs Stan

Boise vs LSU

 

ETA - didn't read all of Det's post on ASU, etc - well said

Edited November 18, 2010 by wildcat2334

[theprofessor]

Brian, once again. This whole thing got started when what's his face started some BS argument that, since the Pac 10 was only sending 3-4 teams to bowls, they must suck. Go back and read the first post. That's it. Now, first of all, it's a loaded point because USC doesn't get to go to a bowl, so it's really 4-5 bowl caliber teams which all of a sudden doesn't look so bad especially since they're the smallest of the BCS conferences. However, this point is even further undermined when you consider the relatively more difficult schedule all Pac 10 teams play by 1) playing everyone in their conference and 2) playing a more difficult OOC schedule than other conferences.

 

Everything else you're saying above is in response to pretend arguments. No, ASU is not a good team. But they're not that bad either and they would likely be one of those middling bowl teams had they not played as tough a schedule. Because of the fact that they play an extra conference game (which, yes, could be WSU, but could also be Oregon, who knows which one they wouldn't have to play) and the fact that one of their OOC games was a top 10 team, they have at least one more loss than they would had they scheduled some cupcake. I mean, look at four of their losses. They have a 1 pt loss to top 10 Wisc, a 4 pt loss to top 10 Stanford, a 1 pt loss to top 20 USC, and hung with #1 OU reasonably well. There's 4 teams on their schedule, 3 of whom should beat basically anyone in the country, 1 of whom should beat all but 20 teams in the country. And they still have top 20 AZ waiting. Would an easier schedule make them a better team? Certainly not, but it would put them one game closer to the all-important bowl status that I Dream of Sgt seems to covet so. Same story with OSU. So, now we'd could be talking 6-7 bowl caliber teams and now the argument looks as dumb as it really is.

 

Honestly, the Pac 10 should reconsider its policy on scheduling because it's bad for business. Because it's costing the average teams trips to bowls. Now, if you ask me, 6 win teams shouldn't be rewarded with bowls and we have too many. But that's another topic.

 

Frankly, what makes this topic even more lame is the fact that the Pac 10 shouldn't have to explain itself to anyone. They've got enough presence at the top (Ore and Stan), 2 more very solid to 20ish teams in AZ and USC, and a next tier that is good enough that you can't sleep on them (ASU and OSU). Honestly, that stacks up against basically anyone save the SEC. It certainly puts them heads and shoulders above the ACC and Big East. If the Big 10 or 12 wants to argue otherwise, that's fine but it's not like either can make a compelling argument that their conferences body of work is absolutely better.

 

Great post

[Living the Dream]

And still only 3 teams look to be going out of 10. make all the excuses you wish. had SC not cheated for half a decade, maybe they wouldnt have had the success in the first place, so the penalty should not be over looked. then you have teams losing to doormats of the conference and some want to argue they deserve to go to a bowl had they not played non BCS school teams TCU and Boise when those games were scheduled 5-8 years in advance. Luck turned out those teams were good this yr. So to give credit to the Pac-10 for scheduling tough non conference games when those games are TCU and Boise, 5-8 yrs ago is complete crap. UCLA going to Texas IS however a example of this conference scheduling a top program, however, this yr Texas is having its worst year in 25, 4-6. So luck plays the other way in that contest. Though last yrs texas team probably mops the floor with this yrs 4-6 UCLA team. OU consistently plays top programs every year. Fla St this yr, Miami the past 2. Every conference has teams play strong non conference teams. Doesnt mean every team in every conference does, which is exactly the same thing in the Pac-10. Who did Oregon play non conference? So to give the Pac-10 credit as the only who does so is part of the joke Ive been arguing in this post. And to make excuses why Oregon St would be a lock to be 6-4 had they not, when they cant beat 1-9 teams is a bigger joke. Or Arizona St having better athletes than Wisky, and they were the better team, when the eye test, as well as every tangible stat says Wisky was more dominant is yet another joke. See maybe if you pac-10 fans wouldnt pound your chest as if you were something, like no other conference blow hards on this site, and you wouldnt flat out lie and get caught over and over and over. Wouldnt embelish even the smallest detail of a XP hitting the upright, when it was clearly blocked by Wisky, maybe people wouldnt have to correct your posts with facts.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Living the Dream

[detlef]

And still only 3 teams look to be going out of 10. make all the excuses you wish. had SC not cheated for half a decade, maybe they wouldnt have had the success in the first place, so the penalty should not be over looked. then you have teams losing to doormats of the conference and some want to argue they deserve to go to a bowl had they not played non BCS school teams TCU and Boise when those games were scheduled 5-8 years in advance. Luck turned out those teams were good this yr. So to give credit to the Pac-10 for scheduling tough non conference games when those games are TCU and Boise, 5-8 yrs ago is complete crap. UCLA going to Texas IS however a example of this conference scheduling a top program, however, this yr Texas is having its worst year in 25, 4-6. So luck plays the other way in that contest. Though last yrs texas team probably mops the floor with this yrs 4-6 UCLA team. OU consistently plays top programs every year. Fla St this yr, Miami the past 2. Every conference has teams play strong non conference teams. Doesnt mean every team in every conference does, which is exactly the same thing in the Pac-10. Who did Oregon play non conference? So to give the Pac-10 credit as the only who does so is part of the joke Ive been arguing in this post. And to make excuses why Oregon St would be a lock to be 6-4 had they not, when they cant beat 1-9 teams is a bigger joke. Or Arizona St having better athletes than Wisky, and they were the better team, when the eye test, as well as every tangible stat says Wisky was more dominant is yet another joke. See maybe if you pac-10 fans wouldnt pound your chest as if you were something, like no other conference blow hards on this site, and you wouldnt flat out lie and get caught over and over and over. Wouldnt embelish even the smallest detail of a XP hitting the upright, when it was clearly blocked by Wisky, maybe people wouldnt have to correct your posts with facts.

I'd like to think this is the last time I will bother responding to your non-argument.

 

Regardless of how good these teams were when the schedules were made, the simple fact is that the Pac 10 has more OOC games played against ranked teams this year than any other conference. It's not OK's fault that FSU is not a very good team this year and nobody will ever trash anyone for putting at team like that on their schedule. However, this year, it just so happens that's not a particularly impressive win. Its not OU's fault. Just like UCLA beating Texas is not. However, regardless of how good teams are supposed be, the Pac 10 played more teams outside their conference that are good this year than any other conference and there are undeniable facts to prove it. Which goes a long way to explain why their lower tier teams are not looking at going to bowls while the same types of schools from other conferences are. It does not, mind you, say the Pac 10 is a stronger conference, it simply and absolutely refutes your notion that they suck because they don't have as many 6 win teams as other conferences. There are other reasons why the Pac 10 is as good or better than other BCS conferences, but the fact that they played more ranked OOC games is not it. So let that part go.

 

So, put aside for the moment anyone patting anyone on the back for manning up and playing a tough schedule. This doesn't have to have anything to do with that. All this is about one thing and one thing only, showing how baseless and stupid your initial post in this thread is.

[Living the Dream]

I'd like to think this is the last time I will bother responding to your non-argument.

 

Regardless of how good these teams were when the schedules were made, the simple fact is that the Pac 10 has more OOC games played against ranked teams this year than any other conference. It's not OK's fault that FSU is not a very good team this year and nobody will ever trash anyone for putting at team like that on their schedule. However, this year, it just so happens that's not a particularly impressive win. Its not OU's fault. Just like UCLA beating Texas is not. However, regardless of how good teams are supposed be, the Pac 10 played more teams outside their conference that are good this year than any other conference and there are undeniable facts to prove it. Which goes a long way to explain why their lower tier teams are not looking at going to bowls while the same types of schools from other conferences are. It does not, mind you, say the Pac 10 is a stronger conference, it simply and absolutely refutes your notion that they suck because they don't have as many 6 win teams as other conferences. There are other reasons why the Pac 10 is as good or better than other BCS conferences, but the fact that they played more ranked OOC games is not it. So let that part go.

 

So, put aside for the moment anyone patting anyone on the back for manning up and playing a tough schedule. This doesn't have to have anything to do with that. All this is about one thing and one thing only, showing how baseless and stupid your initial post in this thread is.

 

And the FACT remains, only 3, maybe 4 teams even play in a bowl in this conference. And that is pretty weak in mine as well as others opinion of this conference. And of those 3 or maybe 4, we will see just how well some of those untested teams do in bowls, which last year led to a 2-4 bowl record. See we heard how great this conference was last yr, they were putting 6 of 10 teams in bowls, Ohio St didnt have the speed to play with Oregon, and it went on and on and one. And we all see how that turned out. This yr, we have to hear again how great this conference is, how they played a better non conference, this crap, that crap. And at the end of the day only 3 teams right now are guaranteed a bowl spot, and my guess they have another losing record in those bowls, even though they are likely to be ranked ahead of all the teams they play. Im saying this, so maybe, just maybe, we wont have to hear this non sense pac=-10 envy crap next yr. But who am I kidding, after last yrs 2-4 debacle we still heard it all this yr, and after this years debacle, facts will be over looked again next yr.

[detlef]

And the FACT remains, only 3, maybe 4 teams even play in a bowl in this conference. And that is pretty weak in mine as well as others opinion of this conference. And of those 3 or maybe 4, we will see just how well some of those untested teams do in bowls, which last year led to a 2-4 bowl record. See we heard how great this conference was last yr, they were putting 6 of 10 teams in bowls, Ohio St didnt have the speed to play with Oregon, and it went on and on and one. And we all see how that turned out. This yr, we have to hear again how great this conference is, how they played a better non conference, this crap, that crap. And at the end of the day only 3 teams right now are guaranteed a bowl spot, and my guess they have another losing record in those bowls, even though they are likely to be ranked ahead of all the teams they play. Im saying this, so maybe, just maybe, we wont have to hear this non sense pac=-10 envy crap next yr. But who am I kidding, after last yrs 2-4 debacle we still heard it all this yr, and after this years debacle, facts will be over looked again next yr.

But it's not...

 

OK genius. What has always been the knock on BSU, TCU, Utah, etc when keeping them out of the NC game? SOS, right? That they wouldn't be undefeated if they played in the SEC or Big 10 or what-have-you. That their record is a function of who they played. That there are teams with one or two losses that may be more deserving because they've had to play a tougher schedule.

 

So, why stop there? Why not scrutinize who better deserves to go to the Poinsettia Bowl, a 6-6 team who played nobody or a 4-8 team that played a bunch of elite teams. Well, one reason is that no reasonable person bothers to concern themselves with whether a 6-6 team that played a crappy schedule is, in fact, better than a 4-8 team that played 3-4 teams in the top 10. But that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying the Pac 10 sucks because their 4-8 teams aren't as good as the 6-6 teams in other conferences. I mean, you not phrasing it that way, but that's what you're saying. That, distilled, is the basis of your argument. And it's, quite simply, a stupid argument.

 

Now, Bowl records, there's an argument. And your point that they went 2-4 last year is well taken. Mind you, they went 5-0 the year before, so that's sort of a wash.

 

As far as what we have this year, so far, the only thing that matters is this:

 

Do they have representation at the very top of the rankings? Yes

Do they have a couple of other teams not far behind (top 25)? Yes

Do they have a third tier that are not complete push-overs? Yes (ASU played two top 10 teams and 3 top 20 teams within 4 pts, UCLA and OSU have proven to be the equal of mid to lower tier teams in other BCS conferences).

 

So, there you go. That's it. You can mine for other crap if you want, but it's pointless. Oh, and the bit about USC. The team that is on the field this year? All those players are deemed as eligible, so they still count when determining how many good teams a conference has. They don't have to spot you a TD when they play you. If you lose to them, it's still a loss.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

detlef, you make valid points, but the fact remains, no one but these pac 10 fans come in and beat their chest more about their conference. I mean I've seen SEC fans less egotistical than these guys and the SEC has a lot more to squak about when it comes to College Football at least. I mean the Pac 10's argument in comparison to everyone is "Hey look at all of the quality LOSSES" we have. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by a conference when they lose every single quality game they are in.

 

And I'm still looking for the definition that we're supposed to go by on what is quality and what isn't. Destroying Florida State isn't a quality WIN for Oklahoma (even though FSU could easily be ACC Champions by years end) but LOSING to Wisconsin is Quality. The funny thing about this argument every year from the Pac 10, is they crow about who they play non-conference, and rag on the Big Ten for example, when most of the Big Ten's non conference games against BCS schools over the past decade, has been, PAC 10 teams. So playing Pac 10 teams isn't quality? That is interesting to say the very least.

 

I just want to know what the standard is. Because if you guys want to make the standard, I'll be happy to play by those rules in terms of a debate. My point is, if you're gonna debate about stuff, please point to wins, not losses. You want to shout about the win over Iowa til you're blue in the face, then knock yourself out. I just don't want to hear about losses to TCU, Boise, and Wisconsin, as some sort of talking point about why your conference is so strong. The ACC, as I mentioned before, has played a lot of highly ranked teams too. They didn't win any of the games, but by golly they played them. I just want to know what the standard is. Is it Top 25, wildcats precious sagrain ranking, colley matrix, new york times, wildcats "i watch a lot of football so my eyeball is better than everyone elses" poll? What are we going by? What is quality? Let's open it up.

[untateve]

detlef, you make valid points, but the fact remains, no one but these pac 10 fans come in and beat their chest more about their conference. I mean I've seen SEC fans less egotistical than these guys and the SEC has a lot more to squak about when it comes to College Football at least.

 

Simply, when you know you are the best, that is enough.