Perhaps I didn't make myself quite clear enough. In comparing the two arguments, the similarities lie in the fact that no amount of evidence is enough to dissuade the aforementioned parties that their opinion might possibly be wrong. I realize that my opinion may be wrong. In fact, I even conceded to Corey that the Pac-10 did get the proverbial shaft many times when it came to bowl berths and respect with the national media. With your argument with MCG, much of the same is true. No amount of records of the SEC vs. the Big 10 that you can throw at him is going to persuade MCG that the Big 10 might be as good as the SEC.
well lets see <r><QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> OK I will play:<br/> <br/> Auburn vs Oregon- both teams 9-4. Auburn struggled throughout the season. Oregon tore thru the season until their starting QB went down and ended the year with a flurry of conference losses.<br/> <br/> They have one common opponent:<br/> <br/> South Florida 26 Auburn 23 @ Auburn (in a game USF tried to hand to them many times)<br/> Oregon 56 USF 21 @ El Paso, TX.<br/> <br/> Auburn's marquis wins were squeekers over Alabama and Florida. They were beaten at home by Mississippi State and were annihilated by Georgia in Athens. Auburn's claim to fame really is that they played LSU close.<br/> <br/> Oregon began the season by blasting Michigan in Ann Arbor and then dropped 52 on Fresno State. They beat USC. They dropped 50 points on 5 different opponents and 31+ points on 9 of 13 opponents. Injuries finally undid them for a streak at the end of the year. When they finally caught a rest to get partially healthy, they hung 56 on USF.<br/> <br/> Michigan finished 9-4 and beat Florida in their bowl game. Florida finished 13th (to Michigan's 18) despite their identical 9-4 records and Michigan's head to head win. Florida was ranked above Auburn, who was also ranked higher than Michigan.. despite both teams having beaten Florida.<br/> <br/> ASSu finished ranked right below Auburn. Auburn was 9-4, ASSu was 10-3. ASSu played 4 tough teams and lost to 3 of them. While that's worth a 5 spot bump for SEC teams, I can't say they were any better or worse than Auburn. The Sun Devils did handle a Cal team that beat Tennessee but means squat unless we're talking direct head to head.<br/> <br/> I think interesting arguements could be made that both Illinois and Texas Tech could have posed big problems for an Auburn team that struggled to score all year. Both teams had offenses that were tough to keep out of the end zone, and enough defense to slow/stop that terrible Auburn offense..but that's just speculation.</r>
Aquila, You are correct that your objective comments about the Pac 10 must be considered. I am aware of what you said. My only point was that I hope you don't yield to the mindset that everything Corey says about other conferences contains the subliminal message that the Pac 10 gets no respect. I don't want to carry this any further because I respect your intelligence and your approach, and I don't want you to think I have an issue with you in any way whatsoever. I don't.
Sid, No problem here with you or anyone else on the board. Buckeye T, it's hard to win wrestling against an elephant. Corey, your argument for Oregon more than holds water. Touche on that one. Arizona St. got thumped in their bowl game. Illinois got thumped in their bowl game although it was by USC so it's quite reasonable to assume that Auburn would have suffered the same fate. Michigan, as good as they may have been late in the season, suffered from Appalachian State syndrome. I agree about Texas Tech giving Auburn a game and I think Texas Tech has to be considered a dark horse in the Big 12 this year. We're not that far apart it appears..... My only contention is that #15 isn't too big of a reach if it is a reach at all and that Auburn could be a darkhorse (granted very dark) to win the NC this year.
Aquila <t>I'm with ya. I don't really hold much against Illinois for getting buzz-sawed by USC.<br/> <br/> IMHO (and as a ND/UCLA guy no one hates to say this more than I), but USC would have done that to anyone at the end of the year..</t>
I stand corrected <t>Rick is right.<br/> <br/> I think the difference between the two would have been USC's defense. Moreno is a monster...but Rey Rey is just unholy.</t>
So, you guys being Pac-10 guys (Rick and Corey), do you think USC has the stuff this year to go undefeated?
I wouldn't bet money on it, and I certainly don't want it to happen. Injuries and luck play a good part in going undefeated. Remember Miami/BC in 2001? As far as USC/UGA, Richt wouldn't have gotten in Carroll's head with the excessive celebration play either. Hell, the USC players probably would've gotten out there and danced with those Dawgs. Just another night at the club...
USC is weird <t>do they have the talent? without a doubt. if you get a chance to see them, i'd recommend it. Last season Herbie and Corso were blown away by the physical specimens (and the number of them) on that roster..<br/> <br/> They can and will brain fart along the way.. and as Rick mentioned, injuries play a part...team chemistry, leadership etc.. but when they click, they are just scary. I remember warning Jeff Ramsey years ago that the days of John McKay weren't dead... They were just dormant waiting for USC to hire the right guy. They've always had the players. The drop off wasn't in talent in the region, it was in talent running the program.<br/> <br/> This figures to be a weird, weird year in the Pac10. Lots of questions. Quite a few teams who could be great, or just average, depending on how some people step up.. Then again, that's most anyone. There's a lot of questions out west this year though.<br/> <br/> One thing is for sure.. If Washington ever goes back to being Washington, the Pac10 gets scary.</t>
I am of the strong opinion that each and every year some conferences are better than others and there is a tiered ranking based on overall performance of conference members and especially as it relates to how they perform in bowls at the end of the year and in non-con games throughout the season. I also feel every season is different but at this time of year we can only go on what happened last year. The SEC was therefore 47-10 total including the bowls in non-conference games last season. Now those things combined represent one helluva large elephant with an SEC banner on his saddle don't you think?
Not only that, but it is a rare thread that he does not begin to argue with himself for good measure just to make sure somebody is listening...... :lol:
I think my statements are very specific to the previous posts made in this topic and they were directed at Corey's stance until you felt the need to jump in. As usual when you can't make an effective supporting statement to your own opinion when I have made a strong counterpoint you resort to ineffectual obtuse comments and vague personal insults.
That is a meaningless statistic unless you separate out all the patsies that all strong schools put on their schedule to fill out the 12 games.
Well we can throw out Minnesota losing at home then to North Dakota State.... But you're right.... there are definitely some patsies adding to the mix of numbers but the bowl record stands at 7-2....and that's pretty good.
Good point. Is that 47-10 regular season? Seems kind of a lot. The Pac-10 can only schedule 30 non-conference games in a season since we play 9 conference games each. 57 non-con games would be almost 5 non-cons per team in the SEC. But it must be regular season, otherwise why would someone write that the SEC was "7-2 in the bowls last year" and then follow it up with "The SEC was also 47-10 in non-conference games last season."
No...that 47-10 includes the bowl games because they are non-con games as well and in fact they are the best non-con games usually.