Scott4USC Read this

[scott]

This was taken from Collegefootballnews.com

"But LSU will be just as good if not better, right?

On paper, yes. In the standings, I?m not sure yet because the schedule, and the SEC, will be tougher. LSU will go on the road for games at Auburn, at Georgia, Florida (who are all going to be loaded) at Arkansas and possibly the SEC title game meaning it?ll take an amazing effort for the Tigers to get through without two losses.

Don't forget, with the exception of Maurice Clarett and Mike Doss, Ohio State was all back full in 2003 and didn't turn out to be the same team. Tennessee had everyone back after its 1998 national title, and Oklahoma was more than loaded after the 2000 championship season. For whatever reason, teams just don't get the same performances and breaks with injuries two years in a row, especially when they're the hunted like LSU will be playing in a killer conference like the SEC. There's so much speed and talent on the Tiger offense that it can't help but be good, but the loss of receivers Michael Clayton and Devery Henderson will definitely hurt a bit. Matt Mauck wasn't so good that a better passing quarterback can?t replace him, but he had a Craig Krenzel-like ability to win big games and always seemed to make the smart play. Intangibles can sometimes mean everything. With all that said, LSU should have a fantastic season and should definitely be the favorite to win the SEC again. The defense should be impenetrable.

So if LSU might not get the same breaks two years in a row, shouldn?t it reason that USC will also have problems staying at such a high level?

Yes, but there?s a major difference: The schedule. USC starts the season against Virginia Tech and has road games at BYU, Stanford, Washington State, Oregon State and UCLA. With all due respect to the Cougars (both of them) and Beavers, USC should be light years ahead of anyone it faces away from L.A. In the Coliseum, forget it as the Trojans have been amazing at home under Pete Carroll. It's very possible that USC won't play a top ten team, while LSU gets those road games against Auburn, Georgia, Florida and Arkansas. Each of those four away dates might be tougher than any of the USC road battles with the possible exception of the Oregon State game. In other words, USC can afford an injury or two and still get through the slate without too much of a problem. LSU needs everything to go its way. With that said, flip-flop the two schedules and I?d say there'd be almost no way USC would get through LSU?s slate unscathed."


http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2004/Ask_CFN/Prespring_Preseason_Questions.htm

 

[Scott4USC]

Nice read but that is just one mans opinion. I do not think the SEC is tougher than the Pac 10. The numbers support my opinion. If the SEC was so tough, why do they struggle against BCS compeition? Why do they schedule cream puffs for OOC schedule which get SEC teams ranked. THen you say, look, FL just beat #10 LSU @LSU, they are so tough. Well when LSU starts off the year 4-0 playing div. 2 schools and winning by 40pts they will be ranked. Very easy to understand. It implies to every single SEC team. Why are there so many bad teams in the SEC that never improve? Why only a handful of teams from 12-team conference win the conference championship? How many times have teams gone winless in conference play in the SEC? Lastly, why does the SEC have such a horrible record playing the Pac 10 AWAY AND AT HOME? Now, I never said the Pac 10 is more dominant than the SEC. I am just saying the SEC is not tougher than the Pac 10. I do not care that so many SEC teams are ranked, it means nothing. Like it or not, the #'s prove my statement. Will LSU have a tougher schedule than USC next year? Maybe. I do know that USC better be ready from the first game till the end of the season. Lets see who LSU plays for OOC as the article conveniently left out. They sure mentioned USC OOC but left out poor LSU. Let me show you.

Oregon St. (tough opponent but of course it is at LSU with no return trip to Oregon St., how nice for LSU. Another thing, this game was scheduled after the season of this year. It was an added game and how convenient for LSU to play OSU when their best player leaves for NFL, which was known prior to the agreement. Why didn't LSU go after OSU last season with RB Jackson? Anyways, I applaud LSU playing OSU even if it is at LSU.)

Houston (they might be decent, but of course it is @ LSU)

Troy St. :lol: (anybody predict an upset here? Oh how convenient it is @LSU)

WOW, that is 3 OOC games and all 3 are @LSU. :nono: That is shocking. At least this year LSU did not play 2 DIV. 2 schools. Does LSU ever play a dominating OOC opponent? I wouldn't dare ask if LSU plays a strong OOC opponent away from LSU. That would be too much to ask for and too difficult for LSU. Now I know why they play div. 2 schools and horrible div. 1 opponents. They never require LSU to play at their place. :lol:

Now I know why that guy left this out of his article. It would have clearly weakened his argument.

 

[Cie]

I realize that you are probably 12-14 years old, but I am going to explain something to you for the 2nd, if not 3rd time. BG, Marshsall and Troy St have all backed out on LSU in the past 2 seasons. Due to the lack of quality OOC opponents which were available and willling to play in Tiger Stadium, 3 low level Div I and Div II squads were scheduled to fill these open dates.

Furthermore, I prefer OOC home games vs. weak competition than OOC road games vs. quality programs. Why??? Because I, along with the thousands of members of the Tiger Athletic Foundation, enjoy game day in Baton Rouge.

 

[Scott4USC]

Cie Grant

I was aware of the teams backing out on LSU. USC needed to fill in 2 open dates this year, and scheduled Virginia Tech and Colorado St. Not Div. 2 schools. Maybe LSU had a shorter time frame but i doubt it. Why? Here is why.

In 2002, LSU OOC schedule.......
@ V-Tech :thumb:
The Citadel :lol:
Miami (OHIO) :lol:
La Lafayette :lol:

What was LSU excuse for the 3 other OOC games? What a joke.

In 2001, LSU OOC schedule.....

Tulane :lol:
Utah St. :lol:
@ Tennessee :thumb:
Middle Tenn. St. :lol:

What was LSU excuse for the other 3 OOC games? What a joke.

What I find real funny is LSU in the last 3 years, is 0-2 with 2 losses against the only 2 strong OOC opponents they faced. NOW I know why LSU schedules Div. 2 and poor Div. 1 opponents for an OOC schedule. They cannot beat quality OOC opponents. THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another thing, in the last 3 years LSU played 10/12 OOC opponents at home. The 2 losses LSU had were on the road to the only 2 quality opponents they faced in the 3years. How pathetic. You people proclaim how tough the SEC is? How tough LSU is? Give me a break. :nono:

 

[Scott4USC]

Furthermore, I prefer OOC home games vs. weak competition than OOC road games vs. quality programs. Why??? Because I, along with the thousands of members of the Tiger Athletic Foundation, enjoy game day in Baton Rouge.

I disagree. I prefer USC to play teams like Auburn, CO, Kansas St., ND (all teams USC played the last 3 years), at USC and then return a trip to their place. Why? I would not enjoy USC beating a div. 2 opponent by 40pts. Who cares. I do enjoy watching USC battling it out for a win against top notch competition.

 

[Blackman]

In 2001, LSU OOC schedule.....

Tulane :lol:
Utah St. :lol:
@ Tennessee :thumb:
Middle Tenn. St. :lol:

Isn't Tennessee in the SEC? I may be having a brain fart - it's a long day at work.

If they are I guess it helps your arguement anyway.

 

[Scott4USC]

Blackman

Thanks for correcting me BLACKMAN I am the one who had a brain fart. . That even strengthens my argument against LSU. WOW! In 3 years LSU has played 1 quality OOC opponent and lost and has played 11/12 OOC games at home. Perfectly explains why so many SEC teams get reanked in the top 25.

 

[Kdogg21]

heck, id rather be ranked than not ranked. I don't care what teams plays who, all it matters is, who gets it done on the field at the end. Obviously, LSU did. More people are gonna remember they won the National Championship, than try to figure out who in the hell they played, because most people know that the SEC is a tough conference as it is. Like I said before over and over, obviously the COACHES and POLLSTERS think they are credible teams, otherwise they would never vote them in the top 25. Everybody used to give crap to Nebraska for having a weak OOC sched. and it reflected a couple years ago by geting the brains beat in by Miami. Did LSU have a weak OOC sched?? i would probably agree with that, but overall they faced 6 top 25 teams and they went 5-1, beating a 3 top ten teams, which does include Georgia twice, which was very impressive....

 

[Stuman]

This argument will never die...

Isn't the ultimate goal of any team to make it to the NC game? Like I have said before numerous times, if USC didn't play tough OOC competition they would have absolutely NO chance at getting into the NC game, even if they were to go 12-0, and that is a FACT. Hell, it wasn't even good enough this year with the better OOC competition, because the conf pulled you down so much... Mr. Carol and company knows this, thus the tougher OOC scheduling.

Once again, there is no need for the SEC to schedule tougher OOC opponents. Doing so would be suicide, and the SEC has nothing to prove unlike USC. Making it to (and winning) the NC game is good enough for our fans. The method in which we get there is immaterial, and we are certainly not ashamed of it. We all know how tough our conf schedule is and that is good enough for us. OOC scheduling is obviously much more important to our friends on the west coast, and for obvious reasons. OOC scheduling never even crosses the mind of most SEC fans, because quite frankly, it doesn't really matter now does it?

 

[Cie]

There is no reason for me to ever argue with Scott4USC again. I will concede that USC is the greatest football program in the world.


USC has the best football program in the nation.
USC plays the toughest schedule in the nation.
Pete Carrol is the best HC and recruiter in the nation.
Norm Chow is the best O coordinator in the nation.
Pete Carrol is the best defensive mind in the nation.
USC fans are the best in the nation.
USC uniforms are the best (and prettiest) in the nation.
USC has the richest tradition in the nation.

GL:weed:

 

[Scott4USC]

Stuman

Remember your post in this thread. I will prove you wrong in a special thread.

Quickly i will point out your flaws. You only talk about this year year. Pac 10 had a down year last season yet was a top 4 conference. That hurt USC. Think.

Like I have said before numerous times, if USC didn't play tough OOC competition they would have absolutely NO chance at getting into the NC game, even if they were to go 12-0, and that is a FACT.

No that is far from being a fact. Have you looked at the PAC 10 conference rankings the last 50+ years? USC been scheduling tough OOC competition for 50+ years. How many teams have gone undefeated and not played in the title game since the BCS started??????? LOOK IT UP and it will prove your last statement being foolish.

Cie Grant

The facts and truth hurt you and it is hard for you to accept it. I know you have no counter arguments to the material presented in front of you.

 

[Stuman]

What are your thoughts on my second paragraph?

 

[Scott4USC]

Stuman

Here are my thoughts on your 2nd paragraph.

Once again, there is no need for the SEC to schedule tougher OOC opponents. Doing so would be suicide, and the SEC has nothing to prove unlike USC. Making it to (and winning) the NC game is good enough for our fans. The method in which we get there is immaterial, and we are certainly not ashamed of it. We all know how tough our conf schedule is and that is good enough for us. OOC scheduling is obviously much more important to our friends on the west coast, and for obvious reasons. OOC scheduling never even crosses the mind of most SEC fans, because quite frankly, it doesn't really matter now does it?

That is perfectly fine by me. I have no problems with that at all. I disagree with you saying scheduling tough OOC opponents would be suicide. You do not get it do you? You think your conference is so strong because you do schedule weak OOC opponents. That gives every SEC team a guaranteed 3-4 wins and beating these bad OOC opponents by 40pts gives the SEC fans (and across the country) the perception that the SEC teams are strong. Being 3-0 before conference play and having 4-5 crappy conference teams, allows many SEC teams to be ranked in the top 25. This gives the false impression the SEC is so dominant.

HERE IS MY PROBLEM!!!!!!

You SEC fans proclaim your team (s) are so tough and how tough your conference is. You say, look, so and so beat 4 top 25 teams in the SEC. (that is bogus).

SEC is not a great conference top to bottom. Go read my thread on "is a conference as strong as its weakest link."

So now the elite SEC teams get 3-4 automatic OOC wins, PLUS
3-5 automatic SEC wins against the teams at the bottom of the conference.

If we compare that to the PAC 10 who is tough 1-10 and plays a tough OOC schedule, you have no choice but to give more respect to the PAC 10 conference.

Do I think the PAC 10 is more dominant than the SEC???? NO.

I do not think the SEC is tougher than the PAC 10 and the #'s prove it.

Any rational fan can see this but I guess I can understand an SEC fan having a hard time coping with it since you have believed your conference being so superior for so long. Again, if you disagree with me, please look up my threads and counter argue all of my objective facts against the SEC.

REMEMBER, I am not talking just about last year but on an average year. Last year I ranked the SEC #2 conference with Pac 10 being 3rd. I am very rational and I call it like it see it. Take a look at this thread of mine and give me YOUR opinion.

http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136850

What I would like is for one of you SEC honks to counter argue against my facts and present your own material supporting the SEC. None of you can do it. I am very open minded and I challenge anyone to convince me the SEC is a dominant. I just don't see it.

 

[Stuman]

Please elaborate on the "4-5 crappy conference teams".

Now we all know Vanderbilt is going to be weak in FB, year in and year out. Its hard to hold Vandy to the same standards as the rest of the conference, because it is an academic based university. The best atheletes simply do not "make the grades" to attend. Vanderbilt doesn't make academic exceptions for athelets, or at the very least, very minor ones. Vanderbilt doesn't even have an atheletic budget like most. It all comes out of the general fund. Vandy belongs in the Ivy league, but they have been in the conference since god knows when, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. (They help pull up the academic average in the conf)

Now, Vanderbilt asside, name me the other SEC bottom dwellers. I can assure you that those so-called bottom dwellers have had great success in the past and many have at least one NC to their name. I will agree, that there are a few that have been pathetic over the past couple of years, namely MS State. MS State has been a VERY successful program over the years, with national rankings every year to back it up. And if you are going to attack Ole Miss you better do your research! I am pretty well versed w/their FB history.

I can buy into your "SEC Myth" a little bit, but not to the extent that a certain SEC team should be unranked as opposed to ranked. Your myth theory could drop an SEC team a few spots in the national rankings, I'll give you that. But to try and pass off the whole conference as a fraud is ridiculous.

 

[Scott4USC]

Stuman

I can buy into your "SEC Myth" a little bit, but not to the extent that a certain SEC team should be unranked as opposed to ranked. Your myth theory could drop an SEC team a few spots in the national rankings, I'll give you that. But to try and pass off the whole conference as a fraud is ridiculous.

Thanks for being reasonable and rationale. I NEVER MEANT to imply the SEC was a bad conference. It is a premier conference but no way a dominant conference like people believe. That is why it is a MYTH. The SEC is no better than the Pac 10. That is my statement. Someone is very ignorant if they say SO AND SO SEC team is better than the PAC 10 SO and SO team because they play in the SEC. That is bogus.

Please elaborate on the "4-5 crappy conference teams".

When has KU, MSU, Ole Miss, Vandy or S Carolina won the conf.? Never?????

"Since 1991, every Pac 10 team has finished ranked in the top 10 by the coaches and the AP polls. Since 1992, every Pac 10 team (except Cal) has won or shared the conf. title, and only one has gone undefeated in conf play (UCLA '98)!" (from mansa)

Now you make the excuse about VANDY being so academic. Well let me fill you in on STANFORD! Oh wait, Pac 10 also has CAL, UCLA and USC. THAT is 4 top notch academic schools in the Pac 10. NO EXCUSES!

You did not read my write-up on "Is a conference as strong as its weakest link." HERE IS THE DATA. Took the 3 worst teams (last season) from each conference and calculated the power rankings and SOS.

1. ACC 68 SOS: 16
2. Pac 10 66 SOS: 15
3. M. West 67 SOS: 47
4. B. East 64 SOS: 59
5. Big 10 60 SOS: 30
6. Big 12 60 SOS: 32
7. SEC 61 SOS: 43

SEC is very top heavy. Very good teams. Remember, the SEC is not tough from top to bottom. The Pac 10 is. The SEC does not gernerally play tough OOC opponents. The Pac 10 does. You sound like a very reasonable man so I hope the light is shining through.

 

[TDP]

Until there is at least an eight team play-off in college football, national championships are meaningless. I understand this conversation is basically about schedule validity, but the only thing that really matters is both teams won their respective conferences, something they played for and I respect that greatly. For that, they both have my respect. The only national champs that matter are in lower divisions where they played for them, no fault of two great teams in USC-LSU, just a fact in my opinion...

 

[Stuman]

When has KU, MSU, Ole Miss, Vandy or S Carolina won the conf.? Never?????

I though you might spew something like that. Just shows how LITTLE you know about the SEC. (But then again, how could you know anything about other conferences when you spend so much time worshiping USC/PAC10?) That statement is flat out WRONG! I can tell you without any research that Ole Miss has won the SEC conference six times, as well as three national championships! I'm sure the others you mention have similar stats, but its just not worth my time researching becuase you will not listen anyways. Also, S Carolina has only been in the SEC for like 10 years! Get a clue!

Funny how you will only throw ten years of data out there when it fits your agenda, but then talk about 50+ years of PAC10 history at the same time. Think objectively!

Now you make the excuse about VANDY being so academic. Well let me fill you in on STANFORD! Oh wait, Pac 10 also has CAL, UCLA and USC. THAT is 4 top notch academic schools in the Pac 10. NO EXCUSES!

Either one of two things then:

1. Vandy is a true academic school, making NO academic exceptions for atheletes (unlike the schools you mentioned) Think about it - It would be absolutely impossible for an "academic" institution to get a #1 recruiting class. (USC) The best atheletes in the country are NOT scholars, never will be, and that is a fact!

or

2. The schools you mentioned are above average academicaly, but not on par with Vandy. How else could such good recruits qualify academicaly to attend?

Also, I'm pretty sure the schools you mentioned have a seperate Atheletic budget, unlike Vandy. It makes a difference when your money comes out of the general University fund, becuase you are told how much you can spend, period.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, lets apply your SEC Myth theory to the national rankings. How many SEC teams crack the top 25 each year on average? 5-6? Now, lets drop all SEC teams in the top 25 down 5 spots. How many are still in the top 25? Still way more than the PAC10, on average. The reason I picked 5 spots is because I can see the polesters overating the SEC a little bit. But the polesters are not as stupid as you are having us believe. You are putting too much weight on your SEC Myth theory. Do you see my point of view?

 

[Kdogg21]

*MOST DIFFERENT CHAMPIONS BY CONFERENCE (1936-2003):

SEC, 6 (ALA{7}, TN{2}, AUB, LSU(2), UGA, FLA)

ACC, 4 (FSU{2}, MARY, CLEM, GT)

BIG TEN, 4 (MINN{4}, OSU{5}, MICH{2}, MSU)

BIG 8/BIG XII, 3 (OU{7}, NEB{5}, CU)

PAC-10, 3 (USC{6}, UCLA, WASH)

SWC, 3 (TEX{3}, TCU, TAM)

BIG EAST, 1 (MIA{2}

WAC, 1 (BYU)

 

[Stuman]

*MOST DIFFERENT CHAMPIONS BY CONFERENCE (1936-2003):

SEC, 6 (ALA{7}, TN{2}, AUB, LSU(2), UGA, FLA)

ACC, 4 (FSU{2}, MARY, CLEM, GT)

BIG TEN, 4 (MINN{4}, OSU{5}, MICH{2}, MSU)

BIG 8/BIG XII, 3 (OU{7}, NEB{5}, CU)

PAC-10, 3 (USC{6}, UCLA, WASH)

SWC, 3 (TEX{3}, TCU, TAM)

BIG EAST, 1 (MIA{2}

WAC, 1 (BYU)

Not sure about these stats. Ole Miss isn't listed, yet they have 3 NC within your date range.


:shrug:

 

[Kdogg21]

my bad...fixed it....excellent post by the way!!!