Corey, I'm getting old, so this may or may not be the case BUT... I think you need to look at what the not-so-good teams were doing in that same span. Yeah, the top couple each year were good, but what about the mid-level, and the lower levels?? I seem to remember them all being pretty bad. (again, I don't remember like I used to so I could be wrong!) Combine that with what you said below, and you get an unfavorable rep - whether it's deserved or not.
Scott, To save another massive posting. I went back and looked. Its about the same as any conference in any given year. There are teams with 2 or 3 losses (or less).. There are the 4 to 5 loss teams.. There are .500 teams and a few sub-.500 teams.. The biggest difference is that they seemed to rotate out year in and out during the 90s. I wouldn't, by any stretch, call the 90s a banner decade for the Pac10..but it wasn't as bad as was made out, and it was deeply hurt by the parity in the league...at least in terms of public/poll perception. The other conferences all had their annual big dogs who ate.. The P10 was a random bag of champions.
I'm like Scott. I don't have a strong memory, but it seems that year-in and year-out all of the major conferences have two, maybe three, solid top 10 to top 15 teams, then a few mediocre records followed by a few also-rans. I don't think that the Pac 10 historically has been any different - any stronger overall OR any weaker overall - from any other major conference. The difference, I believe, is that in recent years the SEC has had 3-4 outstanding teams (TN, FL, GA, and LSU) with the rest being as described above, and that is what has fed the perception of its overall strength vs. the other major conferences. I have been among those who have believed that the SEC has been - by a small margin - the strongest conference overall IN RECENT YEARS, certainly not over an extended period of time. As we all know, these things are cyclical, even on a year-to-year basis, so the perception may or may not last based on on-field results. Only time will tell.
I think instead of making another lengthy post myself I will just agree with Sid's post just above this one. :roll: :roll:
The PAC10 in the 90's was hurt by the perception that they didn't play defense. True or not, it was the perception fueled by what seemed to a lot of very exciting high scoring games. There used to be a Sat night game on Fox that was always a PAC10 game, I forget the old UCLA QB who did the color he always sounded like Pat Hayden to me, but a lot of those games were high scoring. That UCLA QB who went to the Bears and flopped, he seemed like the poster boy for the PAC10. With him you were never more than a play away from some spectacular toss, flip, pitch that went all the way. A lot of wide open offense back then it seemed to me, which as I said fueled the no-defense criticism.
Cade McNown. Yeah, I remember those days on the boards. A lot of wide open offense in the Pac did fuel the "no defense" criticism, yet in the 2000 season when Northwestern beat Wiscy 47-44 in Madison and later beat Michigan 54-51 in Evanston (how many OTs?), well, that was exciting football, just without the "no defense" criticism. 8)
I think it just shows the stereotypes that were assigned back then. The Pac10 was wide open offense, the Big10 was tough defense. The SWC and B12 (originally) were running conferences.
To that I can only say....duh! On the current SEC...this topic is about what is happening now because of all the coaches in the league now.
When one of the coaches that is PERCEIVED to be among the worst in your conference has been at the school for 16 years, has the highest active winning percentage among head coaches that have coached for at least ten years, and has won a national title, you know you have some great coaches. Such is the case for Fulmer who it is said cannot beat the new upper echelon of coaches in the SEC and, I admit, the numbers do bear it out. Fulmer can't quite seem to consistently beat Les Miles, UM, Mark Richt (although he's getting much better at this one maybe), and Nick Saban. The same thing can be said about Steve Spurrier in his UF days. Fulmer had a hard time beating him. Now, Spurrier is back in the league along with the other guys. On top of that, you now have Tommy Tubberville who UT doesn't play against as much, Bobby Petrino, and a pretty good coach in Houston Nutt. Then you have "up and comers" at upstart programs like MSU and UK in Croom and Brooks. And I know I don't have to remind Tennessee fans what Bobby Johson's team pulled on the hill a couple years back. I know I'm repeating here but if I were to be objective and look at what has transpired in the SEC since 2000, I would have to rank Fulmer in the middle of the pack and this guy's the dean of SEC coaches. When you look at the resume I touted to begin the post that is unfathomable. You can debate about the strength of the conference all you want but when it comes down to it, give the SEC its due especially when it comes to the respective head coaches. IT IS THE BEST!!!
Well he did finish strong at Orgeon before getting the NFL gig.....but Aquila is a young guy who might not have even remembered that Brooks ever coached in the PAC10.
That is true. After only one winning season in his first ten at Oregon, Brooks did lead the Ducks to four winning seasons in his last eight.
hey Rick <r><E></E><br/> <br/> You should come for a visit. Its a hoot down here starting in ohhhh say 27 days and right on thru the holidays.<br/> <br/> The hardest part, living in these parts, is remaining a fly on the wall at times.</r>
I used quotations for a reason. I don't think either of those two guys are, in reality, up and comers. They're up and heading down the hill if anything. However, they both had nice seasons last year with mediocre talent and I think they have both programs heading in the right direction. I hardly think they are great coaches but they're doing OK with what they have inherited. TOK, you're right I was not aware that Rich Brooks coached at Oregon. Either way, still refer to the above for how I really feel about Brooks and Croom.
whoa whoa whoa whoa <t>I was going to let this die and go back to waiting for someone to jump on the Michigan section I posted a while ago but I'm not going to let this sit..<br/> <br/> Why call out Croom and Brooks??<br/> <br/> I think its more than fair to say that they have both proven themselves as coaches. The great coaches don't only win when they are suppose to, they win when they aren't suppose to....<br/> <br/> They win at places with limited resources... They win at places that don't sell their souls for football success.<br/> <br/> Bear Bryant was a guy like that.. Parseghian was a guy like that.. Spurrier was that guy, but his struggles at South Carolina are taking the shine off that armor. <br/> <br/> To his credit, Urban Meyer has shown he can win at different levels...so at this point in time, I'd say he's well on his way to that category.<br/> <br/> Could Phil Fulmer, Mark Richt, Nick Saban, or Les Miles win at Mississippi State or Kentucky in your vaunted SEC?? With 2 of those 4, I really doubt it. With another 2, I say no effing way.<br/> <br/> Some of these guys (Fulmer and Richt) have never played a game at the table without 3 aces in their sleeve. Saban and Miles both won, marginally, before SEC success... both of them could have their reputations come crashing down over the next 3 years depending on football fortunes.<br/> <br/> People are so quick to pass off on guys like Brooks and Croom, and that's a shame. Furthermore, it shows me they know dick about coaching.<br/> <br/> I talk with countless Tide fans a day who have confided in me that they do wonder (as happy as they are with Saban), if the better coach didn't get away to Miss State.</t>
But apparently there are those in the SEC that think they are. Otherwise, who would you be quoting, other than a straw man?
The best coach in the country at winning games you're not supposed to win is Ron Zook but he also loses way too many that he shouldn't lose. Quite a conundrum with him. In the SEC....how can you deny Spurrier for winning games at SCar that he was not supposed to win like beating Tenn in Knoxville and damn near knocking off eventual national champion Florida in the Swamp.
SOS <t>Holtz had a much bigger hole to dig out of at South Carolina than Spurrier did. Like Holtz, he's had some success but SOS appears to be on a cusp of sorts. His program is going to go one way or the other...</t>