Master Capper (and others)
Elite Wins. This is how many wins a program has from 2001-2003 over teams that finished a season with three losses or less.
Very interesting list. However it does not mean too much to me since different conferences have different philosophies. For example, the Pac 10 plays tougher OOC opponents and the Pac 10 did NOT have any bottom dwellers except for maybe Arizona last year (Arizona went through turmoil and played #3 SOS in nation). So I
think that is unfair to a conference who most likely will have less teams with 3 losses a year.
Let me spell it out. PAC 10 OOC + CONF. SCHEDULE is tougher than say SEC OOC + CONF. SCHEDULE. Now if you just take CONF. SCHED. vs CONF. SCHEDULE you "may" be able to argue the SEC on average may be tougher. But we ALL know a schedule has OOC + CONF play and when you combine BOTH the Pac 10 comes out with a stronger SOS on average. Therefore less 3 loss teams from the Pac 10. Another point is a lot fewer bottom dwellers in the Pac 10. Without question the Pac 10 is a more competitive conference. I also feel the SEC has MORE elite teams in their conference. Just my opinion.
The incoming recruiting class rankings are basically worthless, yes it shows that some of the teams are getting players ranked by so called guru's but go back and take a look at the high school Parade magazine all American team's for the past ten years and a vast majority of these first team guys never amounted to much at the college level.
I would not say worthless. There of course are players who were all world in high school and busts in college and players who were average in high school and became all American in college. HOWEVER, these recruiting rankings broke it down, and more 5-star/4-star recruits panned out vs 3-star recruits. Meaning their breakdowns are pretty accurate. Each team has on average 20-25 recruits each year, so there def. will be busts and def. be surprises. It all averages out. Take the 1st team all American from last year and I guarantee most of the players on that team were 4 and 5 star recruits. All in all, I think recruiting rankings are valid in terms of judging talent, but in no way is having the #1 recruiting class guarantee you a National Championship. Look at Texas, they get all the talent a team needs and either A) don't develop it or b) don't recruit the players to fit their system. Give all of Texas talent too Iowa and let Ferentze coach them and Iowa contends for a National Championship. Just my opinion. Can't win alone on talent. I observed that first hand at USC. Coaching means everything in college football.
Back to the orginal post.
Maybe I am wrong, but BEANO COOK was talking about TALENT in each conference. He was not talking about better teams nor better conferences. He was talking about TALENT! BBK ranked his conf. in terms of talent and I strongly disagreed. He still has not shown me why but I never really expected to get an answer.
bbk thinks CAL is average. I guess you are not aware that Rogers is at the very least a top 5 QB in the country. I guess you are not aware that Walter from Arizona is considered 1st round NFL talent in next years draft. He would have been early 2nd round last years draft. Pac 10 is loaded with talent, maybe not the best but def. a top 4 conf. based strictly on talent. You may be asking where are the results? Well the Pac 10 has had many coaching switches in the last few years. USC and CAL both were fortunate to have success right away, lets see what happens to the other programs. One thing is for sure, the Pac 10 conf. is recruiting great talent.
BBK 
name one team that is scared to play anywhere in the pac 10 other than at Oregon; usc home field is not imposing the only thing imposing is the team they play; a big reason the pac 10 gets dogged out is their fans are the most pathetic out of the big conferences; their home attendance is flat out pitiful compared to the big conferences and that is UNDISPUTED
And what does that have to do with TALENT?? We were debating CONF. TALENT. Not strength, not home field advantage, not who is scary to play. What are you talking about? Stay on topic.
THE ARGUMENT IS ON TALENT!!!! TALENT!!!!!!!
Avalanche
Go ahead and point out the Big 12 had bad defensive teams but make NO MENTION of how great the offenses were in the big 12.
THIS IS TOO FUNNY. :lol2
If a conf. has HORRIBLE defenses and had a HORRIBLE BOWL RECORD, I am not going to praise their "great" offenses. Maybe, just maybe, their great offenses were a product of the conferences weak defenses. Not to mention the horrible teams at the bottom of the conference. Sorry, not going to agree on that.
75% of the Big 12 conference last year finished in the bottom half of the nation in total defense and 5 of those teams are in the bottom 25%. Yep that conf. has some serious talent. Might explain their poor Bowl Record last year.
go ahead and forget about how CFN says USC has the "breeziest schedule any #1 team could possibly have" (Now how can that be if the Pac 10 is so tough??) You just don?t seem to get it do you Scott? Go ahead and forget about how USC has the 60th best strenth of schedule in the country.
I AGREE USC does not have a difficult SOS. Not USC's choice but what can USC do. (USC normally has a top 10 SOS year in and year out)
I NEVER said the Pac 10 was the strongest conference last year nor do I think they will be this upcoming season. Sorry to disappoint you but I never said that. Last year the ACC was #1, SEC #2, Pac 10/Big 10 either #3 or #4, and Big 12 #5. This upcoming season I think ACC will be #1 and maybe SEC #2, Pac10/Big 10/Big 12 competing for #3-#5 spots. Very hard to predict when you are dealing with 117 div. 1a teams.
Again, I do not put much weight on "pre-season SOS." In my opinion it is BOGUS! Maybe fun to look at. Way too many variables can happen to alter teams SOS.
