PAC-10 vs SEC

[LadyinOrange]

I saw this on College Football News. An SEC fan was a little ticked over all the PAC-10 hype and matched up the SEC's top 10 with the PAC-10's
top 10. It looks like this....


SEC (1-10) vs. PAC10 (1-10)
LSU vs. USC
Tenn. vs. Arizona State
Georgia vs. California
Florida vs. Oregon State
Auburn vs. UCLA
Alabama vs. Oregon
S. Carolina vs. Washington State
Ole Miss vs. Stanford
Arkansas vs. Arizona
Kentucky vs. Washington

milo, do you STILL think the PAC-10 is better??

:blink:

 

[utvol0427]

Nice Point LIO...There is no better conference, top to bottom, than the SEC

God Bless and Go Vols
Run to the Roses

 

[milohimself]

I still give the nod to the SEC over the Pac-10, but not by much...

But, I think the Pac-10 has the fewest weak teams in the country. The SEC IMO is very strong at the top but very weak at the bottom. I honestly think Vandy, Kentucky and MSU are three of the worst programs in any major conference. Ole Miss and South Carolina are not much better. Arkansas usually ranges from pretty bad to so-so. Florida is just decent now, unless Urban turns things around. But with 15 losses in the last three seasons, I just can't put them on the upper echelon of teams right now. Alabam to me is just decent at best as well but that program is beyond its glory days.

So while the SEC does have Tennessee, Georgia and LSU which I regard as top-tier teams, Florida and Bama are decent, Arkansas and South Carolina are mediocre, and the rest range from pretty bad to terrible.

That's why I say, top to bottom the Pac-10 is better. But the SEC's top makes it better. But only by a bit IMO. I know Washington had a bad season but they still recruit decently and have had relevant success in recent history, whereas the bottom SEC teams have not. Arizona is showing it can compete now as well, after they beat Arizona State last season and have reeled off a few top 15/20 recruiting classes.

 

[duckman398686]

Actually Miss St. has not always been that way. They even played ut in the sec championship in 98'. Kentucky comes out of the woods every now and then with a 7-5 team. And vandy.....well.....yeah

 

[milohimself]

Yes, but I also think that MSU is .500 against D-IAA teams this decade.

 

[Freak]

the three worst programs in any major conference? those are pretty strong words. MSU is not that far removed from some decent seasons.

 

[milohimself]

Maybe. But the D-IAA record can't be ignored. I know they have dropped 2 in the last 3 or 4 seasons.

 

[OldVol]

Just to throw a few facts in for good measure. This study proves there's no comparison between the strenght of the Pac 10 and the SEC.

If the lower 6 teams in the Pac10 didn't have to play teams like the lower 6 in the Pac 10 they wouldn't look so average.

Spoken like this; If the lower half of the Pac 10 had to play the top 7 programs in the SEC they'd look a lot worse than they are. Someone has to be bottom feeder in every conference.

The final poll is what everyone plays for. This study represents the top 25 finishes in the AP poll for the last 15 seasons.

71 finishes for the SEC to 41 for the Pac 10.

27% of the Pac 10 teams finished ranked each season during the study.

That's 2.7 teams per year.

39% of the SEC teams were ranked each season.

By far the most telling statistic is, counting the BCS championship for LSU in 03, 4 DIFFERENT teams won a National Championship from the SEC to 1 team from the Pac 10.

Now, does anyone want to talk strength top to bottom. No conference in America has even come close to having 4 National Championship teams during that period.

10 SEC teams finished in the top 25 during the study. Only Vandy and Kentucky did not.

The addition of Arkansas and SC actually drug the conference down, but I counted their records from 90-91 to be fair.

Oregon St. finished only one year during the study.

This is a nonsensical argument.

The numbers are so stacked against the Pac 10 that you have to be a real HOMER to argue for them.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by vol_freak@Aug 25, 2005 11:44 PM
the three worst programs in any major conference? those are pretty strong words. MSU is not that far removed from some decent seasons.

[snapback]131303[/snapback]​

Miss St. played in the SEC CG in 98. We beat them to go on to win the NC.

Plus, Kentucky beat Indiana for the last 3 years so that pretty well disspells that they're worse than other conferences' bottom feeders.

 

[milohimself]

I would also include Indiana as one of the worst teams in any major conference...

Like I said, I give props to the SEC. Very strong at the top. Only the Big Ten competes at the top, but that's just for this season.

 

[hmanvolfan]

Lookin' to see SC in the Rose Bowl, and I ain't talkin' about Darth Visor's Gamecaulks.... :moon2:

 

[utvolpj]

Originally posted by milohimself@Aug 25, 2005 10:52 PM

That's why I say, top to bottom the Pac-10 is better. But the SEC's top makes it better. But only by a bit IMO. I know Washington had a bad season but they still recruit decently and have had relevant success in recent history, whereas the bottom SEC teams have not. Arizona is showing it can compete now as well, after they beat Arizona State last season and have reeled off a few top 15/20 recruiting classes.

[snapback]131257[/snapback]​

Milo, Milo, Milo... :disappointed: You are putting KY/Vandy/MSU as three of the worst teams in major conf. but using UofA and Wash. to make your case for the PAC-10??? Washington was 1-10 last year ( 6-6 in 2003) with a tough win over San Jose St. and UofA was 3-8 and coming off a 2-10 season in 2003. They beat the powerhouses of NAU (not D-1), Washington (see above) and ASU. While the win over ASU was good, it just proved how weak the PAC-10 was. ASU was not good and they were 3rd best in conf. And before you say it, I was at the Iowa/ASU game and it does not compare to SEC football. I also thought Iowa was overrated but that's a diff. thread.

 

[volmanjr]

I think I predicted this thread with milo defending the pac-10 about 3 months ago! (stand in awe of the power of the ninja) Sorry buddy but even with Vandy and KY SEC football has no true peers, its like comparing stock car racing to Indy racing. Indy no where close to NASCAR.

 

[OldVol]

Here's a comparison of the SEC and Pac 10 for 2004.

The numbers prove that our bottom feeders are no worse, and in fact, a little better than the very bottom of the Pac 10.

We had more teams ranked final poll, as good of a winning percentage (but you have to consider, that winning percentage was based against each other, which means the SEC played an overall tougher schedule top to bottom).

When you look at these teams side by side it's not very easy to defend the Pac 10.

 

[milohimself]

Well, I will continue to as illogical as it may seem to you, OldVol.

It's where I live, I still love to see the chance that a team from my region might drop another regional powerhouse. While I am no USC fan, I am still proud that what may turn out to be one of if not the best football squad of all time is a west coast team. I am still proud of the fact that last season, Oregon State walked into Death Valley and gave LSU fans such a scare it sent most of them into a hysterical state of denial because they came within a hair's width of getting beat by a team where there supposedly is no such thing as real football.

We may not have all the 90,000+ seat stadiums. The fan bases for CFB are a lot smaller than in the south, sure. But we got fans too. I'm proud of the fact that the Pac-10 as a conference is as strong or stronger in academics than any other conference in the NCAA. The Rose Bowl, The Coliseum, Autzen. USC vs. UCLA, arguably the best cross-town rivalry in all of sports. The Civil War, among the oldest and most-played rivalries in all of college football. Terry Baker at Oregon State in 1962, first Heisman winner in the western United States. The Apple Cup in Washington is one of the most heated rivalries I've ever seen, including Ohio State v. Michigan, and any SEC rivalry. The list goes on.

I dunno why but a good number of SEC fans (not all of ya) just seem to have this contempt for the Pac-10. I've seen it on TigerForums where they treat it like an abomination to the sport of college football because USC steals attention from them while they whine about it. Many other SEC boards seem to have the same sentiments.

Alls I've got to finish on is there is such a thing as real football on the west coast, whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

eace:

 

[OrangeFrenzy]

Well said, Milo. I believe everyone can understand and respect regional pride in sports.

I think what you are seeing is a great deal of regional pride on our end that is further fueled by a history of success and strength in conference. We are saying that the SEC is, top-to-bottom, the best conference in football. Statistics and history will back this statement. By saying so, we should not let that take away from the PAC 10. Does that make sense.

The umbrage you will most likely see is the fact that most major media is not based in the south. Therefore, most media darlings are pumped from other conferences ans we, here in the strong and historically dominant SEC just kind of have to scratch our heads and get offended. Further that with other conference playing easier schedules and getting adulation and ranking, while SEC teams beat on each other and lose rankings and national respect becasue of it, and again we may get offended.

So, we all admit that USC is a powerhouse. But NEVER expect us to not posit whether they would remain undefeated playing LSU in Louisiana, or US in TN, or Auburn in Bama EVERY OTHER YEAR. Then see about a possible 3pete.

peace, man!

 

[milohimself]

Thanks, OrangeFrenzy. I'd like to reiterate I've got a lot of respect for the SEC as well as every other conference around the country. It's just if there's one thing I've noticed on a lot of SEC message boards (much less so on this one, thank goodness) is complete tunnel-vision and homerism towards their program and the SEC. I don't have a problem with that part. It's the fact that I've seen a lot of fans show complete disrespect for football anywhere else in the country. I think it's wrong.

 

[OrangeFrenzy]

Originally posted by milohimself@Aug 26, 2005 12:58 PM
Thanks, OrangeFrenzy. I'd like to reiterate I've got a lot of respect for the SEC as well as every other conference around the country. It's just if there's one thing I've noticed on a lot of SEC message boards (much less so on this one, thank goodness) is complete tunnel-vision and homerism towards their program and the SEC. I don't have a problem with that part. It's the fact that I've seen a lot of fans show complete disrespect for football anywhere else in the country. I think it's wrong.

[snapback]131410[/snapback]​

Uh... You mean there is football elsewhere in the country?


j/k

I don't think anyone can honestly write off any conference as a whole. There is talent all around the country. But also put yourself, regionally and conference-loyalty-wise, in our shoes and you may understand some of the "homerism". Auburn went undefeated in THE SEC last year and were borderline disrepected because of OOC scheduling. While I personally don't see any excuse in them playing a 1AA team, I look at their overall schedule last year compared to almost anyone in the country and am just dumbfounded. The SEC can and will take that personally.

We in the SEC want a strong conference for regional pride. It's sometimes hard for us to take as seriously schools who are happy dominating a weaker conference and getting butt-kissed for it.

But again, your points are well made that there is quality football all over.

eace:

 

[milohimself]

It's not exactly like the Auburn topic has gone untouched around here... :lol:

All I have to say is that the team that got left out would have gotten the screw job.

Oklahoma had one of the most dominant regular seasons in recent history.

Auburn went undefeated in the SEC.

USC had a win over a BCS team in VT and another over Cal who should have gone.

Plus, I think the Pac-10 can be harder to play in (not harder overall), in the respect that you can't take a week off. The upper-level teams in the SEC can still space out against the lower-level teams and pull off the win. I've seen it before. You can't do that in the Pac-10. The team that comes with the a-game has the better shot at going home with the win, period. You just don't see that in any other conference. Even the scrubs can hang with the champs if they come correct.

 

[GAVol]

Milo, the one thing that the SEC definitely has over the Pac-10 is tough road environments. I think you may discount how hard it is to win on the road in the SEC no matter where you go. Until you've been to some of these places, you can never understand how flat out hostile an environment they can be.

 

[OrangeFrenzy]

Originally posted by milohimself@Aug 26, 2005 1:33 PM
The team that comes with the a-game has the better shot at going home with the win, period. You just don't see that in any other conference. Even the scrubs can hang with the champs if they come correct.

[snapback]131423[/snapback]​

You're arguing for the PAC 10 with that statement. lol

I'm not trying to change your mind, just explain what you may not understand.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by GAVol@Aug 26, 2005 10:41 AM
Milo, the one thing that the SEC definitely has over the Pac-10 is tough road environments.  I think you may discount how hard it is to win on the road in the SEC no matter where you go.  Until you've been to some of these places, you can never understand how flat out hostile an environment they can be.

[snapback]131426[/snapback]​

I know. I'm fully aware the Big Ten and SEC have the toughest road enviroments.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by OrangeFrenzy@Aug 26, 2005 10:41 AM
You're arguing for the PAC 10 with that statement. lol

I'm not trying to change your mind, just explain what you may not understand.

[snapback]131427[/snapback]​

In the Big 12, the big boys can slack off against Baylor and Kansas and still come out with the win. In the ACC, the big boys can slack off against Dook and Wake Forest and still make away with the W's. In the Big Ten, the big boys can slack off against Northwestern and Indiana and still go home happy. In the SEC, the big boys can slack off against Vandy, Kentucky MSU and sometimes even Ole Miss, Arkansas and South Carolina and still walk away with the win. In the Big East, Louisville can slack off against everybody and still win. LOL

My point is, here there's no such thing here as a "built-in" win to the schedule, even for USC. In every one of the Trojans' games last season, they were playing a-game but still nearly got taken down, even by friggin' Stanford. I think when an entire conference can hang with the champs as long as they play up to their potential, and the conference champs happen to be two-time national champs, that speaks volumes.

 

[BeltwayVol]

There isn't a tougher conference than the SEC.

PERIOD.

Hell the east alone includes....

Phil Fulmer
Steve Spurrier
Mark Richt
Urban Meyer

No doubt in my mind that the SEC is tops, and if it wern't, the Pac Ten wouldnt be Top three.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by BeltwayVol@Aug 26, 2005 11:15 AM
There isn't a tougher conference than the SEC.

PERIOD.

Hell the east alone includes....

Phil Fulmer
Steve Spurrier
Mark Richt
Urban Meyer

No doubt in my mind that the SEC is tops, and if it wern't, the Pac Ten wouldnt be Top three.

[snapback]131439[/snapback]​

Dude, honestly. You can't talk crap about Urban Meyer in one thread and include him as a reason for the SEC's strength.

Anyways, than you for your insightful comment. Don't you have to go maintain the thread where you cut and paste from Snopes though?