Auburn/Washington State Game

[Nickelback]

I guess my point is that winning the national championship has huge financial rewards aside from the BCS payoff. . . how much? I don't have a clue but certainly millions and millions of dollars. So I believe my point is very accurate because of the unknown factor.

I certainly wasn't talking about the BCS money itself

 

[Scott4USC]

Since 1990............ (that is 15 years of data)

Mississippi: 0 conference titles.
Arkansas: 0 conference titles.
Mississippi State: 0 conference titles.
South Carolina: 0 conference titles.
Kentucky: 0 conference titles.
Vanderbilt: 0 conference titles.

Since 1990, 90% of the Pac 10 has won a conf. title. Since 1990, only 50% of the SEC has won a conf. title. CAL is the only team who hasn't and they easily would have last year if USC was not standing in their way. USC went on to win the National Championship. Quite impressive.

 

[oldschoolcapper]

or flip the coin and look at the fact that the Pac-10 has not had a single team that has been in the NC hunt year in and year out until SC the last 3 years. Not that impressive to me when your conference champ has a losing record the following year.

 

[gjn23]

huh...... no other teams in the title hunt?????

ucla-arizona in 98 (had ucla won their final game they would have been in the 1st bcs game...but they traveled to Miami and lost...that's the Miami Hurricanes in a non-conf game...not the Citadel's of the world)

99-nobody was that good as arizona fell apart and stanford went to the rose bowl

osu and uw were top 5 teams in 00

oregon in 01 should have been in the bcs game NOT nebraska.

sc in 02-03-04 has proven to be the elite team in the nation


That's 6 seperate teams that either played in the bcs game, could have played in the bcs game or finished in the top 5......the sec has fla. tenn, lsu, auburn and bama all with similar credentials during that time frame

 

[Scott4USC]

or flip the coin and look at the fact that the Pac-10 has not had a single team that has been in the NC hunt year in and year out until SC the last 3 years. Not that impressive to me when your conference champ has a losing record the following year.

Do you think it might have to do with conf. play being tough top to bottom? Every Pac 10 team since 1990 has been competitive for the most part. The facts don't lie. There are no teams you can say since 1990 were consistent automatic wins year in year out. I am not saying the Pac 10 has the most elite teams. I don't think they have the most elite teams. But I do know that the Pac 10 is competitive top to bottom, especially from the years 1990-2005.

Do you think the strong OOC scheduling played a part? Take UCLA for example. They would have had legit chance at a National Championship if Miami didn't beat them at the end of the year. The game was played @Miami. UCLA might have had a NC if they scheduled LA MONROE, Citadel, etc. They scheduled Miami. They lost.

Don't focus on wins/losses or NC's alone. LOOK at who teams/conf. play and where they play.

There are multiple examples where Pac 10 teams could have won a NC but the ball didn't bounce there way (or they were screwed). Oregon, UCLA, Washington, USC (3 years ago), etc.

Look at phil steeles strength of schedule ratings as an example. Maybe he is bias trying to make west coast fans happy? We all know there are soo many more passionate fans from the west coast than the east coast and more specifically the SOUTH. (sarcastic) So please don't use that BS argument to discredit Steele. If he was going to be bias, he should be bias to east coast/mid west because that is where he will sell more subscriptions. Don't bring up his ATS record either. Who cares.



Phil Steele's top 20 toughest schedules!

6 pac 10 teams in the top 10. (60%)
8 pac 19 teams in the top 15. (80%)

Maybe you should start respecting a conf. that year in year out has 50-80% of there teams playing top 15 rated SOS. Maybe that won't result in many top 25 rankings or National Championships, but stop displaying your ignorance calling the Pac 10 a weak conference.

I dare you to say Phil Steeles SOS is bogus. Show me someones elses SOS calculations that you think has more credibility. There are others that are just as legit (using logical calculations) but be prepared to defend it. FYI, Phile did an excellent job showing how flawed the NCAA SOS calculations are. Which should be obvious to anyone. They are based on wins/losses from the year prior. Completely bogus. Don't factor who or where you played or what conf. a team is in. A 6-6 team in the MAC is rated just as high as a 6-6 team in the SEC. Just wins/losses. BOGUS!

Here are his top 20 SOS.

1. UNC
2. ND
3. Northwestern
4. Arizona
5. UCLA
6. Oregon
7. G-Tech
8. Arizona St.
9. USC
10. Oregon St.
11. Colorado
12. Washington
13. Illinois
14. Stanford
15. Texas
16. Clemson
17. Ohio St.
18. Oklahoma
19. Minnesota
20. Michigan St.

 

[TimmyE]

Phil Steele accidentally left out the SEC teams on that top 20 SOS list.

 

[oldschoolcapper]

gjn,

read it closer. i said the pac-10 has not had a single team in the hunt year in and year out. that means a damonant program year in and year out. (until sc the last 3 years) of course they're going to have a team play in a BCS bowl every year because the champ has an automatic bid.

 

[oldschoolcapper]

Scotty,

Why don't you quit displaying your ignorance (which you seem to enjoy) by stopping all the whining about East Coast bias and the might Pac 10 doesn't get a fair shake? It kills me that you find a writer who sheds some favorable light on the Pac 10 and all of a sudden he is the god of football rankings.

And what am I supposed to argue about Phil Steele? How does your posting his top 20 give out his formula? Yes, he did an excellent job as we can all see by you posting his top 20

 

[AU2001]

Big 10 = multiple quality programs
Big 12 = multiple quality programs
ACC = multiple quality programs
SEC = multiple quality programs

Pac 10 = 1 quality program

(singing)One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong.

I made the UK comment just to get a rise out of a few posters. You guys can get so serious and angry. I do not think UK is on the same level as UW, but I still don't think UW is a quality program.

And Notre Dame will continue their reign of mediocrity in 2005. I don't care who their coach is. 7 wins will be a blessing.

And Coug LJ, AU would be favored even if we played in Japan or Pullman. And we still have nothing to gain from beating a mediocre pac-10 team. All we can do is lose respect by playing a close game or losing.

 

[AU2001]

I dare you to say Phil Steeles SOS is bogus.

Phile Steele's SOS is bogus.

 

[gjn23]

it's funny that you trumpet the sec as THE superior conf that has multiple quality programs ........i GUARANTEE you are including auburn in that "quality program category". Most dont.

The dominant quality programs are fla, ut.....followed by uga then lsu...auburn is above average (along with alabama) the rest of that conf is WELL below average and a few are CONSTANTLY HORRIBLE (much like oregon state of the 70's and 80's).

Keep thinking that playing wazzu is a no-win situation for you......it will help you more that you can imagine......if you win.

 

[Nickelback]

You know, who cares about dominance anyways? I think the entire point of this thread is that Pac 10 teams go out and play tough OOC games (Steele's SOS is somewhat of a reflection of this even though it would make more of a statement after the season). SEC teams stay home and have teams similar to Division II competition on their OOC plate. SEC teams certainly can't sit and whine about not getting into the national championship game when their OOC is filled with creampuffs while other teams with the same record had a much better OOC.

Everyone knows the system now. . . is the SEC gonna sack up and play some real OOC games or continue with their normal routine?

 

[gjn23]

sec sack up?

they need the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (like no other school needs money from home games)

 

[Scott4USC]

Phile Steele's SOS is bogus.

WOW! You can type. Lets see if you can explain why.

Scotty,

Why don't you quit displaying your ignorance (which you seem to enjoy) by stopping all the whining about East Coast bias and the might Pac 10 doesn't get a fair shake? It kills me that you find a writer who sheds some favorable light on the Pac 10 and all of a sudden he is the god of football rankings.

No. I found someone who calculates SOS logically. I found someone who is intelligent and respected by many for his publishings. If you disagree with him, that is your opinion. But I would like to know what exactly you disagree with. You can't say he is bias. So do you disagree with his power rankings? Him factoring home/away games in his SOS? Him not just focusing on 1-3 opponents but rather focusing on every opponent on a schedule? Or do you disagree with him because his calculations support my opinion?

I said there are other reputable sites that calculate SOS and Steele may or may not be the best. But I would love someone to tell me why his calculations are not valid/logical and why _____ are. In powersweep, Phile Steele intelligently explained why the NCAA SOS is flawed. An intelligent person supports his opinion/argument and often will attack the opposition as well.

I also like Sagarin Rankings in terms of SOS. His calculations make logical sense. Whether his power rankings are right on or dead wrong is irrelevant.

Remember, calculating SOS or power rankings is not an exact science. Most cappers in terms of handicapping would be happy if they were wrong 40% of the time!

 

[AU2001]

blah blah blah...same tired song from gjn23.

blah blah blah "Auburn sucks"
blah blah blah "the pac-10 is good I promise"
blah blah blah "here's an obscure stat to try and prove the pac-10 is good"
blah blah blah "I hate the SEC"
blah blah blah "you guys in the SEC are pussies"
blah blah blah "I want Scott4USC to be my real daddy"
blah blah blah "you guys don't stay up late enough to watch the west coast teams"
blah blah blah "Auburn sucks"
blah blah blah "I hate the SEC even though I admit they are the toughest conference to play in"
blah blah blah "AU2001 is a hick, or a redneck because he thinks the pac-10 is a weak conference"
blah blah blah "I have little man syndrome about my conference and team"
blah blah blah "Cal didn't want to play Texas Tech"
blah blah blah "Auburn sucks, AU2001 sucks, and the SEC sucks"
blah blah blah "I jerk-off to pictures of Pete Carroll"

:mj14:

 

[Nickelback]

LOL, that is quite amusing AU2001. . . and I still thought Auburn was robbed last year and should have played in the NC game because I thought they were better than OU. Still think they were but one of the problems was their SOS wasn't the greatest due to their OOC competition. Its their loss and potentially the SEC's in the future if they don't plan to play better OOC competition.

Unfortunately no team can plan on their conference being strong but they can do something about their OOC. Quite obvious and straight to the point.

 

[Scott4USC]

sec sack up?

they need the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (like no other school needs money from home games)

USC right now is building a 100+ million basketball arena. You see USC scheduling home/away series with Ohio St., Nebraska, Arkansas, ND (every year), Colorado St. (yeah they have huge stadium), etc. etc. etc. In the last 5 years USC had H/A series with CO, KSU (I don't think they have huge stadium), AU, Hawaii (HUGE STADIUM), Florida St., etc etc etc.

Many Pac 10 teams as well. They play h/a series with not only great teams but even lesser teams who don't have big stadiums. Oregon St. h/a with Boise St. as an example. (BTW Carroll said would be the #1 place he wouldn't want to play at)

I guess the Pac 10 schools know how to invest properly and manage money. Then again, Pac 10 is the most academic conf. in div. 1a football. Maybe there is some correlation.


But my argument is why do people give the SEC a free pass on this and disrespect the Pac 10? I love it when someone compares an SEC team with this many wins vs a Pac 10 school with that many wins. A JOKE! At least ESPN/the media has finally started to take notice of this. But I am proud to say I gave MADJACKS a 2 year notice! :mj07: Just like I gave MADJACKS a 2 year notice that Pete Carroll was building a dynasty at USC and I was LAUGHED AT! I knew I would get the last laugh.

I also remember people on MJ's who said an undefeated SEC team would never be shut out from a National Championship because conf. play so damn tough. OOC games don't matter.

 

[AU2001]

LOL, that is quite amusing AU2001. . . and I still thought Auburn was robbed last year and should have played in the NC game because I thought they were better than OU. Still think they were but one of the problems was their SOS wasn't the greatest due to their OOC competition. Its their loss and potentially the SEC's in the future if they don't plan to play better OOC competition.

Unfortunately no team can plan on their conference being strong but they can do something about their OOC. Quite obvious and straight to the point.

NB, glad you liked it. I agree with you completely. I believe Auburn will learn from its mistakes and make strides in the future to prevent scheduling from being an issue in the BCS formula. That is the way the system is set-up, and no matter who cancelled what games, you have to find a way to schedule a quality opponent. No excuses.

But anyway, we have plenty of time to think about it, since it will be another 50 years until we get a chance to play for another national championship right?

 

[gjn23]

hey nickel...dont try to make logical points to au....the sec is the best, nobody is close, their leauge is so strong that occ opponents shouldn't matter!

never said you guys were pussies.....i DID say that:

you schedule nobodies....which you do

you are not much better than the pac-10, big 10, big 12, acc...which you aren't

you're program is 5th best in the sec....which it is

you have 6 consistant losers in that conf....which you do

and that I'd love to see the sec teams/fans "travel" further than an hour three times a year to play road games try making a trip from tucson to pullman....or la to coravllis....your teams/fans would see what traveling for a road game is all about.

 

[Coug LJ]

I am really excited about Washington State playing Auburn - in fact, I would love for the Pac-10 to play SEC teams on a regular basis. We do so with the Big 12 and the Big 10. Of course, when a conference demands home games only, it is going to prevent this from happening - even if it is for the good of College Football and the fans.

By playing outside your conference, you prepare your team for Championship games. The Pac-10 has it's pluses and minuses, but it does present sophisticated, pass-oriented Offenses which baffled Big 10 powerhouses for years.

The SEC has loads of talent, but I have not been historically impressed with their Offensive play. Who has been the best teams in that region for the last twenty years - Miami and Florida State - AND THEY AREN'T EVEN IN THE GREAT SEC!

The best team in the SEC during the the last twenty years has been Florida and they are the 3rd best team in the state!

I never apologize for the Pac-10 because I like the depth, balance and uncertainty of the league. With USC becoming the best team in College Football, it demands the rest of NCAA to focus on the Pac-10. And while it is true that USC is dominating the league and the rest of College Football, the Pac-10 is in the best shape it has been in many, many years - if not ever.

I don't always see eye to eye with Scott and his over the top love for USC, but the Trojans don't duck OOC opponents.