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

[GWPFFL BrianW]

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

 

Cannot argue with the SEC winning the last 4 BCS MNC's. Though, by one of your fellow SEC fans, 4 of those 6 BCS championships don't count, because they were wins over Oklahoma and Ohio State. Just saying.

[untateve]

Cannot argue with the SEC winning the last 4 BCS MNC's. Though, by one of your fellow SEC fans, 4 of those 6 BCS championships don't count, because they were wins over Oklahoma and Ohio State. Just saying.

 

Those of us in the SEC can respectfully disagree with each other. Particularly since Florida beat OK and Ohio St.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Those of us in the SEC can respectfully disagree with each other. Particularly since Florida beat OK and Ohio St.

 

Well I'm with you. Both were impressive wins. The game against Oklahoma was the best defensive performance I had seen since LSU's in 2003 against Oklahoma, and before that Oklahoma's performance vs Florida State back in 2000. 3 best defensive performances I've seen in the last decade.

[Living the Dream]

Det makes some valid points, but its generally all over the place. And who cares about 2 years ago bowls, hell OU was #2 in the country then playing FLA for the national championship. that seems like 10 years ago to me.

 

 

Wildcat is simply a clown. I know in the past Ive crowed OU this and that, but Im wise enough to see they are not one of the elite teams this yr, even when they were ranked #1 and undefeated, I knew they would probably lose 2 games this yr. Used to enjoy throwing mud for shock value, but even that got old. Wildcat simply just lies to make a point and hopes someone doesnt do any research. how else can you explain hitting the upright comment, when the kick was actually blocked in the Wisky/AUS game. I simply dont get the Pac-10 envy crap. To me, this is a top heavy conference that those schools really havent played tough competition yet, and will likely suffer in bowls when matched against similar talent, even if those teams are ranked lower than these schools. Seen it too many times before where an offense like Oregon, unstoppable as they say, runs into a team with a defense, and its a blowout the other way.

[detlef]

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.

Brian, you've got to figure out who you're arguing against. Because this seems very much directed towards me and yet you keep on holding me accountable for what wildcat is saying. At no point have I crowed about a loss that ASU had. Rather, I've merely pointed to the fact that they likely would have more wins had they not played 3 top 10 teams this year.

 

So, as much as you'd love to catch me in a double standard bit, I'm not discounting OU's win over FSU and pointing to ASU's loss to Wisc as anything impressive. Well, I'm saying ASU is "not that bad" because they played a bunch of good teams close, but only so much as to say that they're no worse than the mid to lower tier teams of other conferences who are weaseling their way in to crappy bowls and making Brent's Living a Wet Dream filled with Sgts make believe conference rankings make sense. So if you want to call that "crowing", then I guess I am.

 

And, no, I don't think a win vs FSU is all that. They're very much a fringe top 25 team. Why you need to pump them up by saying they may win a conference is odd because both of us know they "might" win a very bad conference. Brian, you make too many solid points to resort to that BS. Save that crap for clueless schmucks like Sgt Dreamer. That said, again, it's not OU's fault that FSU is not a better team. They went out a scheduled a legit OOC game and that team turned out to be decent but no better. But that doesn't change the fact that even the most devout OU homer is not going to point to a win vs FSU this year and pretend it's anything big at all.

Edited November 19, 2010 by detlef

[detlef]

Det makes points, I don't. Points confuse me and confusion angers me. I think I'll go change my name again now.

fixed

[wildcat2334]

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.

 

 

egotistical?? my man have you looked at the title of the thread? sorry but no choice to come and defend the Pac 10 and what I think is totally wrong, worthless statement by private ryan just trying to start chit. I have no desire to scour the Big 10 and 12 standings to see who is "bowl eligible"

 

just too simplistic to say some crappy team out of the Big 12 or ACC is bowl eligible, and CAL and Oreg State stink - ok, well -there is more to the story...... it has been discussed already but the 9 conference games + legit non conference games takes a toll- there is no way around it.

 

Whatever, The Pac 10 goes 1,6,20,22 - which stands on it's own. And yes, the Pac 10 does schedule tougher than the Big 10 and I think the numbers would agree.

 

fwiw under this crappy systems and uneven playing field, I think the BCS actually does a pretty good job ranking the teams.

 

I can't read the dreams posts, thank god, so Brent you have fun with your little the Pac 10 sucks thread

[GWPFFL BrianW]

detlef, I apologize for making it seem like the entire post was directed at you. It wasn't. However I would like to know what the definition of quality is, from you, wildcat, or whoever, because I truly am confused.

 

And wildcat, perhaps you forgot your endless posts on nearly every thread bashing the Big Ten, Big 12, or whoever. I happen to think bowl eligibility is just another way to evaluate teams. No one is denying that the Pac 10 doesn't schedule tougher than anyone. I've even tipped my hat to them for the extra conference game, in other threads. Your big thing though seems to be non-conference games, and scheduling Wisconsin, Boise, TCU, Nebraska is great, but if you don't win those games it's hard to give much credit, particularly when the teams that played those teams are in danger of not even making a bowl. Iowa played Arizona, and lost, still managed to get themselves bowl eligible (again, not a difficult thing, we're talking about being .500, we all agree that there are a lot of bad 6-6 teams at the end of the year, what does that make 5-7, and 4-8 teams?) Sub .500 means below average. End of story. It doesn't mean I think the Pac 10 isn't a good conference. I've said all year, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC are all very strong at the top. The fact is, Oregon played a horrible non-conference schedule. No one would suggest, that because of that they are a bad football team. That's silly. Same with Stanford. Had Arizona lost to Iowa, they would have still gotten at least bowl eligible. But if you're going to continue to pimp teams like Oregon State, then there really is no need to discuss this further.

[Living the Dream]

fixed

 

 

after reading the whole post again, you are just as big a clown as wildcat. You run your mouth recklessly, actually never say anything, just argue for the sake of arguing like your lil short bus buddy. Just imagine what this place would be like without you 3 numb nuts posting pac 10 this and that.

 

I got a offer to make you 3 tools. You never mention the words Pac-10 again, and neither will I. otherwise, we'll continue to school you left coast idiots. But there isnt a chance you 3 can shut it about a conference no one but you 3 care about. even other left coasters attack what a few of you have to say about that conference. Pretty sad when someone else who follows the same conference has to come correct a few of you.

[theprofessor]

after reading the whole post again, you are just as big a clown as wildcat. You run your mouth recklessly, actually never say anything, just argue for the sake of arguing like your lil short bus buddy. Just imagine what this place would be like without you 3 numb nuts posting pac 10 this and that.

 

I got a offer to make you 3 tools. You never mention the words Pac-10 again, and neither will I. otherwise, we'll continue to school you left coast idiots. But there isnt a chance you 3 can shut it about a conference no one but you 3 care about. even other left coasters attack what a few of you have to say about that conference. Pretty sad when someone else who follows the same conference has to come correct a few of you.

 

Once again, this guy shows his true colors. I just sit back and watch him disgrace himself time, after time, after time.

 

IMO, Detlef is the only one that is thorough, objective and unbiased with his posts. Most of us, myself included, could learn from him.

 

55-19

Edited November 19, 2010 by theprofessor

[Living the Dream]

Once again, this guy shows his true colors. I just sit back and watch him disgrace himself time, after time, after time.

 

IMO, Detlef is the only one that is thorough, objective and unbiased with his posts. Most of us, myself included, could learn from him.

 

55-19

 

 

and here chimes #3.

 

 

If correcting and showing complete lies being posted here is disgracing myself, guilty as charged. You would defend satan if he was he disagreed with me, so this post is just par for the course for you. Glad you joined your brothers, I knew you would come running to their rescue..

[detlef]

detlef, I apologize for making it seem like the entire post was directed at you. It wasn't. However I would like to know what the definition of quality is, from you, wildcat, or whoever, because I truly am confused.

Needless to say, it is all very relative. If you're in the hunt for the NC game, then beating a team like FSU is fine enough but certainly shouldn't be the cornerstone of your argument. Otherwise, you're no better off than a team like BSU, who needs to hope that other teams lose because all they've got is a win over VTech (who is actually ranked ahead of FSU).

 

On the other hand, if you're the 5th best team in your conference and you go dummy a team like that, then it does speak volumes about the relative strength of your conference.

 

Like I said before, there are no NC contenders or even 2nd tier elite level teams with an impressive OOC win this year, so nobody has that on anybody. LSU has UNC and WVU, for which they should certainly be applauded for scheduling, and both teams were certainly capable of beating them if they mailed it in. However, even Rocker isn't going to say, "We beat UNC and WVU, we should be playing for it all." Because they're both outside the top 25.

 

In terms of the whole Pac 10 v Big 10 deal with one pointing to these games as scheduling tough and the other not. I guess it depends who is playing who. One of the lower tier Pac 10 teams went to Madison and played the team who is likely to be the Big 10 Champ very, very close. It is hard to see that as very impressive for the Big 10. Just like if OU beat Minn by a TD or less in Eugene, it would be lame for Pac 10 honks to beat their chests about that. In fact, it really wouldn't be out of line for Big 10 honks to laugh at the fact that your worst gave the Pac 10's best all they could handle. OK, maybe Minn is not a fair example. Whatever, pick your equivalent. Maybe Penn St or Illinois.

 

Now, I'm not that interested in going back over the years and seeing how often teams from each conference who were relatively even with respect to their peers played, but I think that is why wildcat is making a big deal about a good loss. For the record, I agree that it's silly that he continues to insist that ASU was the better team. All he really needs to say is that your best escaped by the skin of their teeth against one the Pac 10's also-rans. And, in the absence of any games pitting equal Pac 10 vs Big 10 teams, it's hard not to see that as a minor victory for the Pac 10. At least it's certainly not a feather in the cap for the Big 10.

 

I also hope this is not about your bit on "good losses", because I haven't been pointing to all the good teams the Pac 10 played but lost to as any indication of how strong they are. Maybe others, but not me. I don't think "good losses" should be ignored, and you should be careful of contradicting yourself because that is sort of what you imply when you say 1 loss teams from big conference should be chosen over an undefeated BSU or TCU for the big game. However, they certainly shouldn't be over-blown either.

 

I hope that explains, at least my opinion of what is quality.

[SEC=UGA]

Those of us in the SEC can respectfully disagree with each other. Particularly since Florida beat OK and Ohio St.

 

Fu(k off... How's that for respect, eh?

[wildcat2334]

detlef, I apologize for making it seem like the entire post was directed at you. It wasn't. However I would like to know what the definition of quality is, from you, wildcat, or whoever, because I truly am confused.

 

And wildcat, perhaps you forgot your endless posts on nearly every thread bashing the Big Ten, Big 12, or whoever. I happen to think bowl eligibility is just another way to evaluate teams. No one is denying that the Pac 10 doesn't schedule tougher than anyone. I've even tipped my hat to them for the extra conference game, in other threads. Your big thing though seems to be non-conference games, and scheduling Wisconsin, Boise, TCU, Nebraska is great, but if you don't win those games it's hard to give much credit, particularly when the teams that played those teams are in danger of not even making a bowl. Iowa played Arizona, and lost, still managed to get themselves bowl eligible (again, not a difficult thing, we're talking about being .500, we all agree that there are a lot of bad 6-6 teams at the end of the year, what does that make 5-7, and 4-8 teams?) Sub .500 means below average. End of story. It doesn't mean I think the Pac 10 isn't a good conference. I've said all year, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC are all very strong at the top. The fact is, Oregon played a horrible non-conference schedule. No one would suggest, that because of that they are a bad football team. That's silly. Same with Stanford. Had Arizona lost to Iowa, they would have still gotten at least bowl eligible. But if you're going to continue to pimp teams like Oregon State, then there really is no need to discuss this further.

 

I think under the current system the definition of "quality" is extremely hard to define - unfortunately under the system, we all have our opinions on quality of win or loss, just the way it is. I mean, Oregon wins a close conference game on the road against a top 15 defense that had beaten them 3 straight at home, maybe has an off day and your convinced Auburn would pummel them - which is fine, but how is that any different?? answer is it isn't. ASU playing Wisky down to the wire is just one factor to try and evaluate these teams - and since ASU has played everyone tough, maybe I am underrating WIsky........I don't know

 

Listen, during USC's run I gave the Big 10 props on being a stronger overall conference - they have always had great depth, I just think that has lessened over the past few years and the quality of the league is down - nothing personal just my opinion. These things are cyclical and IMO the best football is being played in the SEC and Pac 10

 

I am done "pimping" Oreg State- they were a solid team that paid the price for their brutal schedule, lost one of their best players to injury and got derailed. Lesson learned bc I doubt you see anyone ever schedule like that again, which is unfortunate.......

[untateve]

Fu(k off... How's that for respect, eh?

 

It makes me sad that two Gator fans are arguing like this.

 

:man-hug:

[SEC=UGA]

It makes me sad that two Gator fans are arguing like this.

 

:man-hug:

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Big Ten proved last year, that they are on an uptick again. No doubt that in 2007 and 2008 they were pretty weak. I still say all 4 of those conferences all are very strong at the top this year.

 

P 10: Oregon, Stanford, USC, Arizona

SEC: Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, and South Carolina

B 12: Nebraska, Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Missouri

B 10: Wisconsin, Mich State, Ohio State, Iowa

 

 

All of those teams I would consider to be good to great teams. All of them have flaws, some more than others. I'm not basing the my Auburn opinion on that one game, but it is very telling. You get defensive pressure up front, and Oregon is completely inept. If their Offensive Line isn't playing perfectly, they have a tough time. A better team, will be able to expose that even more. I'm not saying Auburn's defense is great, but I am saying that I haven't seen anyone be able to stop Cam Newton at all. Not even slow him down. It's like watching Michael Vick on MNF last week, only against weaker competition. Plus they have the very underrated 3 headed monster of rb's too in Fannin, McCalleb, and Dyer. We'll get a good look next week when they play the Iron Bowl. Again, just my opinion.

[Bonedaddies]

egotistical?? my man have you looked at the title of the thread? sorry but no choice to come and defend the Pac 10 and what I think is totally wrong, worthless statement by private ryan just trying to start chit. I have no desire to scour the Big 10 and 12 standings to see who is "bowl eligible"

 

just too simplistic to say some crappy team out of the Big 12 or ACC is bowl eligible, and CAL and Oreg State stink - ok, well -there is more to the story...... it has been discussed already but the 9 conference games + legit non conference games takes a toll- there is no way around it.

 

Whatever, The Pac 10 goes 1,6,20,22 - which stands on it's own. And yes, the Pac 10 does schedule tougher than the Big 10 and I think the numbers would agree. fwiw under this crappy systems and uneven playing field, I think the BCS actually does a pretty good job ranking the teams.

 

I can't read the dreams posts, thank god, so Brent you have fun with your little the Pac 10 sucks thread

 

Just a thought here, but you continue to call out that the Pac 10 schedules "tougher" non conference games year in and year out...right?

 

Ever think that it is NOT the Pac 10 reaching out to add these games to their schedule, but those "tougher" teams put Pac 10 teams on THEIR schedule cuz it will look better beating a Major Conference team

[wildcat2334]

Just a thought here, but you continue to call out that the Pac 10 schedules "tougher" non conference games year in and year out...right?

 

Ever think that it is NOT the Pac 10 reaching out to add these games to their schedule, but those "tougher" teams put Pac 10 teams on THEIR schedule cuz it will look better beating a Major Conference team

 

 

well, I think Iowa and the rest of the Big 10 will think twice before coming out west to play @ Pac 10 schools, they haven't fared too well........

 

listen, I can respect a good argument about why a certain conference is better, etc. It is part of the fun of college football, I just find it amazing that people would actually argue about non conference SOS- bc it isn't even close. And when we don't have a lot to go on in these cross-conference comparisons I think non conference BCS conference wins carries some weight.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

well, I think Iowa and the rest of the Big 10 will think twice before coming out west to play @ Pac 10 schools, they haven't fared too well........

 

listen, I can respect a good argument about why a certain conference is better, etc. It is part of the fun of college football, I just find it amazing that people would actually argue about non conference SOS- bc it isn't even close. And when we don't have a lot to go on in these cross-conference comparisons I think non conference BCS conference wins carries some weight.

 

Somehow I doubt that. The Big Ten and Pac 10 have a longstanding relationship. Something tells me they won't stop with the very profitable home and homes. It goes both ways. I seem to remember Arizona not faring too well last year. Pac 10 teams haven't fared well at all at Kinnick Stadium.

[wildcat2334]

Somehow I doubt that. The Big Ten and Pac 10 have a longstanding relationship. Something tells me they won't stop with the very profitable home and homes. It goes both ways. I seem to remember Arizona not faring too well last year. Pac 10 teams haven't fared well at all at Kinnick Stadium.

 

agreed

 

I like the Hawks, think they end 2nd in the Big 10 behind Wisky and I think they get OSU at home today......

 

Mich St. losing at home to the Boilers so far helps out Iowa quite a bit