7-6 PAC 10, but that's largely anecdotal. USC smacked down some SEC teams, and nobody's every accused them of not being one of the best teams in the country. LSU has also beat down some weak opposition. But just like MWC's record against the PAC 10 didn't mean anything last year, that's not a very large sample size over a 5-year period to make any head-to-head comparisons.
Half the SEC hasn't even played a PAC 10 team in the past 5 years. Georgia, LSU, and Auburn are a combined 5-0 vs. the PAC 10. Arkansas, MSU, and Tennessee maintain the remaining 1-7.
-ETC
Here's some more data...
One conference this season has an average of 3.7 AP ranked teams on their schedule (OOC + Conference) with an average ranking of 12.5. The other conference has an average of 3.8 AP ranked teams on their schedule (OOC + Conference) with an average ranking of 8.3. Any guesses as to which one represents the PAC 10 and which one represents the SEC? And these numbers don't include the SEC Championship game which would likely had two more ranked opponents to the list bringing the average up to 4 ranked opponents per team.
So what does this mean? It means that the PAC 10 needs to schedule a tougher OOC to even come close to having similar overall strength of schedule. The OOC is only part of the equation, you use that portion to balance out the rest of the schedule - it's really not a difficult concept. And for all the complaining we've heard from Conan, the fact remains that the SEC is scheduled to play more teams ranked in the preseason AP poll (but wait, I thought the SEC was struggle with national perception...get real).
The complaint now is OOC + out of state, how many teams have an in-state rivalry that compares with FSU? Granted, they've been down recently, but they've been higher quality opponent than Notre Dame has been in recent years. But if it's not that it will be something else. Before long the whiners will be complaining that the elite SEC teams don't play enough on Thursday night in the month of October in states with a capital that start with a vowel. Keep diggin'....
-ETC
One conference this season has an average of 3.7 AP ranked teams on their schedule (OOC + Conference) with an average ranking of 12.5. The other conference has an average of 3.8 AP ranked teams on their schedule (OOC + Conference) with an average ranking of 8.3. Any guesses as to which one represents the PAC 10 and which one represents the SEC? And these numbers don't include the SEC Championship game which would likely had two more ranked opponents to the list bringing the average up to 4 ranked opponents per team.
So what does this mean? It means that the PAC 10 needs to schedule a tougher OOC to even come close to having similar overall strength of schedule. The OOC is only part of the equation, you use that portion to balance out the rest of the schedule - it's really not a difficult concept. And for all the complaining we've heard from Conan, the fact remains that the SEC is scheduled to play more teams ranked in the preseason AP poll (but wait, I thought the SEC was struggle with national perception...get real).
The complaint now is OOC + out of state, how many teams have an in-state rivalry that compares with FSU? Granted, they've been down recently, but they've been higher quality opponent than Notre Dame has been in recent years. But if it's not that it will be something else. Before long the whiners will be complaining that the elite SEC teams don't play enough on Thursday night in the month of October in states with a capital that start with a vowel. Keep diggin'....
-ETC
What I find anecdotal, as I am sure many others who feel the same way was seeing Ohio St. get set up for a BCS championship game with the SEC, twice in a row. The results are as indicative of Ohio St's problem with the SEC going back years and years as much as the SEC's part in beating them. Another one of those "luck of the draws" in a sense.
Probably a tad wrong-but-PAC-10 30 NFL HALL OF FAMERS-SEC-17=not including 2009. USC leads with 11.ALABAMA leads SEC with 7.GL to SEC and PAC-10- and all others. Hope and pray Florida meets USC in this years Rose Bowl for the NAT.CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. However BCS WILL NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN /
One good reason why it won't happen is because the TV broadcasters and powers at be wouldn't want to see their SEC cash cow lose value if USC did what everyone thinks they might. It is kind of like the SEC way of thinking about not taking any risks. They are already making a ton of money. Why change anything? Why risk smearing anyone's reputation more than necessary if it could result in a financial downturn?
blackbox, I factored in per team with the NFL numbers. Also, not saying SEC has been better throughout history, just moreso in recent years.
Conan, in 2007, it seemed nobody wanted to play for the National Championship. I said last year when USC lost and Florida lost (I think it was the same weekend) that neither team could complain if they get left out because they had very winnable games that they completely blew. Had USC played a conference championship game against the #1 team in the nation and won, and Florida didn't, guess who Oklahoma would have been facing.
2006 wasn't entirely different. The only undefeated team that was left out was Boise State and their schedule was a joke that year (see undefeated Hawaii and Tulane of years past). Utah is a different animal, but when you play in the MWC you have to do better than scheduling Weber State.
But the bottom line in this system is that you can take any 3 teams that cannot meet during the season in all of FBS football, and no more than 2 of them can be said to control their own destiny. To that extent, there's a flaw in the system, and it's no more the SEC's fault than it is the PAC 10's fault (or whatever other conference).
Conan, in 2007, it seemed nobody wanted to play for the National Championship. I said last year when USC lost and Florida lost (I think it was the same weekend) that neither team could complain if they get left out because they had very winnable games that they completely blew. Had USC played a conference championship game against the #1 team in the nation and won, and Florida didn't, guess who Oklahoma would have been facing.
2006 wasn't entirely different. The only undefeated team that was left out was Boise State and their schedule was a joke that year (see undefeated Hawaii and Tulane of years past). Utah is a different animal, but when you play in the MWC you have to do better than scheduling Weber State.
But the bottom line in this system is that you can take any 3 teams that cannot meet during the season in all of FBS football, and no more than 2 of them can be said to control their own destiny. To that extent, there's a flaw in the system, and it's no more the SEC's fault than it is the PAC 10's fault (or whatever other conference).
There has been a lot of talk about changing the western conferences, some of it about adding teams and setting up a championship game between N & S Pac-10 divisions. Putting Boise St. into the MWC with some adjustments and giving that conference BCS status.
The problem is that it's all just a bunch of talk. All of the conferences were once limited in number of teams and no one had conference championship games. The Pac-10 chose to add another conference game when the schedule went to 12 games and what that cost them was 5 more losses per year. The difference between some teams being bowl eligible and not. The difference between some teams being ranked and not. The difference between some teams going undefeated per chance when they didn't draw USC or similar tough competition. A showcase championship game to boost someone's rankings. A lot could be different.
Too bad it's all just a bunch of talk.
This is a lot of what has been behind everyone's dissatisfaction with the outgoing commissioner. The new guy, Larry Scott who happened to live in Florida before he took the job was AMAZED at how misrepresented the entire conference was when he lived in Florida. He came west and witnessed a very sophisticated and well run bunch of programs with much more talent and production than he was ever aware of. He's stated as much. He's taken it upon himself to fix a lot of things that are broke... and you can take that a few ways. New TV deals and more cash is probably tops on his agenda. Switching some bowl affiliations that play after New Years is also almost a done deal.
Realigning the conference to meet with some BCS ranking standard that's appeared for the first time in the sport (which many in other conferences take for granted) i.e. expansion with a championship game? That's on the table but not a lot of takers so far. That's because the Rose Bowl has the biggest payout with the least restrictions of all the BCS bowls. It's about the almighty buck once again. So I wouldn't expect too much to change until at the very least better TV deals are struck with the networks.
Curiously, the SEC has multiple bowl deals with some conferences and the Pac-10 the same. Why not shed one of them and play head to head every year, at least on some level? I doubt that they can steal the Cotton Bowl from the B-12 but maybe there's an in between that can work for travel purposes. OR, the ACC managed to set themselves up with the Emerald Bowl in SF every year. Maybe an east coast bowl can ante up enough to draw a Pac-10 team to play the SEC? (I'm probably dreaming.)
I always am amused at these pac 10 vs sec threads
I happen to probably be in the minority but I usually have them 1 and 2 every year, without a doubt the best conferences
Im a Gator fan yet respect the PAC 10
But your bold statement is telling
are you saying USC beats UF on a neutral field this year?
