USC Trojans vs. UF

[Glutton]

I don't care what anybody else thinks, but with the stats staring you in the face, something must be right about what I'm saying.

In the top 25 defenses from 2008, there are 2 Pac-10 teams and 6 SEC teams.

In the top 25 scoring offenses from 2008, there are 2 SEC teams and 2 Pac-10 teams. So the Pac-10 must have offenses as boring as the SEC's. Or maybe it could be our defenses...let's see...

So Pac-10 offenses were no better or worse than SEC offenses. However, SEC defenses were far and away better. Defense shrank the points that Oklahoma normally scored and Florida won. Defense gave Ole Miss the game against Texas Tech. Look at what UGA did against Brennan and Hawaii two years ago when Hawaii was running up the score on everyone they played. Hawaii met a defense and lost horribly. Sure, Alabama choked against Utah, but the spread also beat Alabama in the SEC Championship game.

So with all of these facts, I stay with my opinion that USC would not march through the SEC like you think they would. Florida didn't do it last year and they still won the BCS National Title. Where was USC? Losing to Oregon State and not allowed a shot at the national title. Why? Because if you take the same Oregon State team and put them against any of the upper tier SEC teams I listed in previous posts, Oregon State would have lost every single time.

Just admit it, USC choked and they paid for it. Period. The Pac-10 is not comparable to the SEC, and the stats I got from foxsports.com proved that very fact, which disallowed USC from appearing in the BCS National Championship.

With the facts staring you in the face, just give it up man. It's over.

#1 How can you say UF didn't march through the SEC last year? They lost 1 game?

#2 This conversation shouldn't be about "choking". Florida "choked" against Ole Miss. They just didn't have to pay for it because of the wonderful UF publicity and Tebow GaGa speech that was eaten alive by the media.."You will never see anyone work harder than i am going to work." Then there is the BCS computer, the brilliant computer.

 

[Glutton]

Not my write up, but definitely something you should chew on for a bit:

Over the past few years, USC has been "punished" for playing in the perceived "weak" PAC-10, while the SEC champion has been able to get to the championship game by playing in the "overwhelmingly strong" SEC. The problem with this, is of course, the PAC-10 is nowhere near as weak as everyone states... and the SEC is not the best conference in the land. Looking at it objectively... it's the PAC-10 that is the best in the land.

I've done a little bit of digging and I'm convinced more than ever that this is the case. Here is some information that supports my hypothesis. Note - all rankings based at end of year AP rankings. "Better" means at least .500 in-conference. I only looked at OOC records, since it is the only way to measure a conference's strength. Information is from the 2000-2008 seasons.

Argument #1. The PAC-10 has outperformed the SEC in nearly every quantifiable category. Here is how each conference fared against OOC competition:

vs. Other BCS Conferences -
PAC-10: 85-73 or 54%
SEC: 91-83 or 52%

"Better" vs. "Better" Other BCS Conferences -
PAC-10: 49-31 or 61%
SEC: 61-49 or 55%

vs. Ranked Top 25 -
PAC-10: 38-65 or 37%
SEC: 36-58 or 38%

"Better" vs. Ranked Top 25 -
PAC-10: 33-35 or 49%
SEC: 34-38 or 47%

vs. Ranked Top 10 -
PAC-10: 12-26 or 32%
SEC: 7-30 or 19%

"Better" vs. Ranked Top 10 -
PAC-10: 12-17 or 41%
SEC: 7-21 or 25%

Head to Head Match-Up:
PAC-10 vs. SEC: 10-7 or 59%

"Better" vs. "Better" Head to Head Match-Up:
PAC-10 vs. SEC: 4-3 or 57%

In nearly every statistical category when looking at actual games played the PAC-10 outplays the SEC.

Argument #2: The SEC's bottom half is ridiculously bad. How bad? The bottom 6 SEC teams - Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina - have only 3 wins against ranked OOC opponents since the turn of the decade! Their winning % is barely over 10% (record is 3-26).

On the other hand, the PAC-10's bottom five teams - Arizona, Stanford, Washington, Washington St, and Arizona St - have 10 wins against ranked OOC opponents and their winning % is 22% (record is 10-35). This record is twice as better as their comparable SEC peers.

Argument #3: The SEC plays weak OOC games, allowing the teams in the conference to pad their w/l records, inflating rankings and allowing for more bowl eligible teams.

Here's a breakdown comparison between the SEC and PAC-10.

SEC (all scheduled OOC games):
# of games: 386
# of home games: 325 or 80% of total games
# of games played against FCS schools: 57 or 15% of total games
# of games played against teams ranked lower than 100 (Massey):134 or 35% of total games
# of games played against FCS or lower than 100: 191 or 50% of total games
# of games played against ranked teams: 51 or 13% of total games

PAC-10 (all scheduled OOC games):
# of games: 296
# of home games: 210 or 70% of total games
# of games played against FCS schools: 26 or 9% of total games
# of games played against teams ranked lower than 100 (Massey):56 or 19% of total games
# of games played against FCS or lower than 100: 82 or 28% of total games
# of games played against ranked teams: 76 or 26% of total games

This shows that the SEC schedules double the number of pansy teams in their OOC, and likely to schedule less than half of the ranked teams than their PAC-10 counterparts. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the scheduling philosophy between the two conferences. One is cowardly, the other mans up... you tell me which is which.

In short, the PAC-10 has outplayed the SEC in every conceivable measurement , yet USC continues to get shafted by not being able to play in the title game due to the perception of the "weak" PAC-10. It is truly an injustice.

Other statistical bits of information:

- The PAC-10 got reamed for going 2-6 against the MWC last year, but it's overall record against that conference is 43-22 or 66% since the turn of the decade. It is obvious that last year was an anomaly. Oh, BTW... what is the SEC's record during this time period? 8-6 or 57%... worse than the PAC-10's.
- How dominant is USC? USC has more OOC wins (8) against Top 10 teams than the entire SEC (7). USC's record is an astounding 8-2 or 80%. Given this, how can USC have only played in 1 BCS championship game this decade?

Well researched. I might not go as far as saying the Pac-10 is as solid, but this shows they are a close second. Pac-10 teams are very athletic and can compete. I think the arguement of they conference is "SOO" much weaker is weak in it self. Maybe the Pac-10 is a weaker conference.. but it isn't leaps and bounds weaker.

USC has more ranked OOC wins than the entire SEC over the last decade. That should tell you something.

 

[ufgatorfan97]

Not my write up, but definitely something you should chew on for a bit:

Over the past few years, USC has been "punished" for playing in the perceived "weak" PAC-10, while the SEC champion has been able to get to the championship game by playing in the "overwhelmingly strong" SEC. The problem with this, is of course, the PAC-10 is nowhere near as weak as everyone states... and the SEC is not the best conference in the land. Looking at it objectively... it's the PAC-10 that is the best in the land.

I've done a little bit of digging and I'm convinced more than ever that this is the case. Here is some information that supports my hypothesis. Note - all rankings based at end of year AP rankings. "Better" means at least .500 in-conference. I only looked at OOC records, since it is the only way to measure a conference's strength. Information is from the 2000-2008 seasons.

Argument #1. The PAC-10 has outperformed the SEC in nearly every quantifiable category. Here is how each conference fared against OOC competition:

vs. Other BCS Conferences -
PAC-10: 85-73 or 54%
SEC: 91-83 or 52%

"Better" vs. "Better" Other BCS Conferences -
PAC-10: 49-31 or 61%
SEC: 61-49 or 55%

vs. Ranked Top 25 -
PAC-10: 38-65 or 37%
SEC: 36-58 or 38%

"Better" vs. Ranked Top 25 -
PAC-10: 33-35 or 49%
SEC: 34-38 or 47%

vs. Ranked Top 10 -
PAC-10: 12-26 or 32%
SEC: 7-30 or 19%

"Better" vs. Ranked Top 10 -
PAC-10: 12-17 or 41%
SEC: 7-21 or 25%

Head to Head Match-Up:
PAC-10 vs. SEC: 10-7 or 59%

"Better" vs. "Better" Head to Head Match-Up:
PAC-10 vs. SEC: 4-3 or 57%

In nearly every statistical category when looking at actual games played the PAC-10 outplays the SEC.

Argument #2: The SEC's bottom half is ridiculously bad. How bad? The bottom 6 SEC teams - Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina - have only 3 wins against ranked OOC opponents since the turn of the decade! Their winning % is barely over 10% (record is 3-26).

On the other hand, the PAC-10's bottom five teams - Arizona, Stanford, Washington, Washington St, and Arizona St - have 10 wins against ranked OOC opponents and their winning % is 22% (record is 10-35). This record is twice as better as their comparable SEC peers.

Argument #3: The SEC plays weak OOC games, allowing the teams in the conference to pad their w/l records, inflating rankings and allowing for more bowl eligible teams.

Here's a breakdown comparison between the SEC and PAC-10.

SEC (all scheduled OOC games):
# of games: 386
# of home games: 325 or 80% of total games
# of games played against FCS schools: 57 or 15% of total games
# of games played against teams ranked lower than 100 (Massey):134 or 35% of total games
# of games played against FCS or lower than 100: 191 or 50% of total games
# of games played against ranked teams: 51 or 13% of total games

PAC-10 (all scheduled OOC games):
# of games: 296
# of home games: 210 or 70% of total games
# of games played against FCS schools: 26 or 9% of total games
# of games played against teams ranked lower than 100 (Massey):56 or 19% of total games
# of games played against FCS or lower than 100: 82 or 28% of total games
# of games played against ranked teams: 76 or 26% of total games

This shows that the SEC schedules double the number of pansy teams in their OOC, and likely to schedule less than half of the ranked teams than their PAC-10 counterparts. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the scheduling philosophy between the two conferences. One is cowardly, the other mans up... you tell me which is which.

In short, the PAC-10 has outplayed the SEC in every conceivable measurement , yet USC continues to get shafted by not being able to play in the title game due to the perception of the "weak" PAC-10. It is truly an injustice.

Other statistical bits of information:

- The PAC-10 got reamed for going 2-6 against the MWC last year, but it's overall record against that conference is 43-22 or 66% since the turn of the decade. It is obvious that last year was an anomaly. Oh, BTW... what is the SEC's record during this time period? 8-6 or 57%... worse than the PAC-10's.
- How dominant is USC? USC has more OOC wins (8) against Top 10 teams than the entire SEC (7). USC's record is an astounding 8-2 or 80%. Given this, how can USC have only played in 1 BCS championship game this decade?

Excellent stats. But probably a bit misleading. The issue with the PAC-10 is that everyone says it's a one team conference. I'd be curious, of all the stats that are up there, take out USCs records, rerun the numbers. Also, to be fair, take UF's numbers out of the SEC records, rerun the numbers. Wonder what that would look like? I suspect that, even though those number above make the PAC-10 look better than the SEC, that the numbers are weighted heavily by USC's records over the 2000-2008 period. If the numbers were to be modified as I've suggested, and the stats then showed that the SEC was better in all/most categories, then the theory that the PAC-10 is a one team conference would be mostly proven. Just a thought.

 

[droski]

SC's schedule this year is FAR harder than florida's schedule. 3 top-15 teams on the road and ND compared to every hard game at home and what 8 home games?

And if Oregon State won their last game they would have won the conference outright. Ole Miss lost to vandy and south carolina. Losing to Ole Miss at home is worse than losing to oregon state on the road.

 

[strongtower]

Some of you guys comparisons have loop holes in them. This is a week in and week out fight. Some say USC loses to Oregon St so their weaker since Florida lost to Ole Miss. Who cares. It all comes down to who shows up. Was UT and sorrier in 97 when we lost to memphis. No we over looked them.

If USC played Florida then it would of been a dog fight since USC has been known to play and beat some of the top programs in the country year in and year out. Yes they play in a weaker conference but doesn't mean they are not the elite either. Who would of won last year? Don't know but I bet it wouldn't of been a blow out.

 

[BigPapaVol]

#1 How can you say UF didn't march through the SEC last year? They lost 1 game?

#2 This conversation shouldn't be about "choking". Florida "choked" against Ole Miss. They just didn't have to pay for it because of the wonderful UF publicity and Tebow GaGa speech that was eaten alive by the media.."You will never see anyone work harder than i am going to work." Then there is the BCS computer, the brilliant computer.

"Marching" through the SEC last season was hardly something to write home about. The conference had one very good team, one good team and a bunch of teams with glaring holes. Alabama was good, but still fit the lack of offense mode that plagued the entire rest of the SEC last year.

 

[G'Town Vol]

Well researched. I might not go as far as saying the Pac-10 is as solid, but this shows they are a close second. Pac-10 teams are very athletic and can compete. I think the arguement of they conference is "SOO" much weaker is weak in it self. Maybe the Pac-10 is a weaker conference.. but it isn't leaps and bounds weaker.

USC has more ranked OOC wins than the entire SEC over the last decade. That should tell you something.

So the Pac-10 is now the Pac-1, right?

 

[G'Town Vol]

Excellent stats. But probably a bit misleading. The issue with the PAC-10 is that everyone says it's a one team conference. I'd be curious, of all the stats that are up there, take out USCs records, rerun the numbers. Also, to be fair, take UF's numbers out of the SEC records, rerun the numbers. Wonder what that would look like? I suspect that, even though those number above make the PAC-10 look better than the SEC, that the numbers are weighted heavily by USC's records over the 2000-2008 period. If the numbers were to be modified as I've suggested, and the stats then showed that the SEC was better in all/most categories, then the theory that the PAC-10 is a one team conference would be mostly proven. Just a thought.

Personally I'd like to see someone do that kind of work, but this guy won't be doing any of the freelance mathematics required. But your theory sounds correct nonetheless.

 

[BuckeyeVols]

I personally dont think the SEC and Pac-10 are close in the "who is better overall" conference argument. USC has won the Pac-10 for, what, 8 years straight or something now? The SEC winner the past 3 years has been different than the year before.....and that winner has won the NATIONAL TITLE all 3 of those years as well. I am not saying the PAC10 is some second rate conference.....not by any means. However, top to bottom, the conference isnt as strong and doesnt have as much talent as the SEC. I would put the conferences as 1) SEC 2A/B) Big12/PAC10 3) Little 11

Using bowl records is a dumb way to compare conference strength, IMO. A lot of times, one team is elated to be there.....and the other is disappointed and un-motivated (see Utah vs. Bama last year).

 

[The Breakerboy]

I personally dont think the SEC and Pac-10 are close in the "who is better overall" conference argument. USC has won the Pac-10 for, what, 8 years straight or something now? The SEC winner the past 3 years has been different than the year before.....and that winner has won the NATIONAL TITLE all 3 of those years as well. I am not saying the PAC10 is some second rate conference.....not by any means. However, top to bottom, the conference isnt as strong and doesnt have as much talent as the SEC. I would put the conferences as 1) SEC 2A/B) Big12/PAC10 3) Little 11

Using bowl records is a dumb way to compare conference strength, IMO. A lot of times, one team is elated to be there.....and the other is disappointed and un-motivated (see Utah vs. Bama last year).

Also the Pac-10 only sent 5 teams to bowls and they were not matched head to head with a SEC team.
Posted via VolNation Mobile