Box, I'm really starting to like your points more and more. You can see both sides of the story and I respect that. I don't think your one of the SEC homers that thinks the 4 best teams are all in the SEC and that their conference is superiour. With that said, you are technically correct, UF did beat OSU in Arizona, but more specifically I was talking regular season games. There is a big differance between flying out to Arizona 12 days early and practicing on the field and flying out on a Thurs after classes to play a game on Sat and then fly home in time for classes on Mon. And look I will never say UF has an easy schedule because they don't. Just saying I see these big time teams flying 3000 miles to play a game and more often than not they lose that game. The SEC generally never does this.
Box, I'm really starting to like your points more and more. You can see both sides of the story and I respect that. I don't think your one of the SEC homers that thinks the 4 best teams are all in the SEC and that their conference is superiour. With that said, you are technically correct, UF did beat OSU in Arizona, but more specifically I was talking regular season games. There is a big differance between flying out to Arizona 12 days early and practicing on the field and flying out on a Thurs after classes to play a game on Sat and then fly home in time for classes on Mon. And look I will never say UF has an easy schedule because they don't. Just saying I see these big time teams flying 3000 miles to play a game and more often than not they lose that game. The SEC generally never does this.
No offense, but I think you are being a little picky and making excuses now.
How are you determining who is elite and who isnt? I mean in the SEC it is different ever year. If the Pac-10 is as deep as you say, then somewhere in that long list of Pac-10 teams played, should be some good teams.
I think while USC seems to be void from your record tracking, so are the Gators. So it evens out.
I mean who are you considering to be the Pac-10s elite teams? You listed Arizona, Oregon State, Oregon, Cal, Washington State, etc.
I think it's important to note, that the most successful SEC team since 1990 or so (Steve Spurrier era) was/is Florida. Spurrier and the Gators dominated the SEC for a long time, and the Pac-10 had the luxury of never really having to play the Gators. So you can consider the SEC/Pac-10 record is without ever having to play the modern era Gators who played for 6+ SEC titles or so in the 1990s and a national title. Tennessee won a national title in 1998. Whose fault these teams dont play is irrelevant to the point I am making which is the SEC has a great all-time record and a pretty even record in the modern era and the Gators haven't ever really been involved. I will tell you their wide open offense would have matched up very well vs. Pac-10 teams in the 1990s and 2000s.
LSU didnt become an "elite" SEC team until recently (2001 they won their first SEC title since 1988.) National title in 2003 was their first since the 1950's.
Auburn has never really been considered an ELITE team either.
You are listing off these schools as if they have always been an elite school.
My Gator post was a harmless joke meant to annoy.
Seriously though....
Road games, especially long road games are very tough. I'm not making excuses for the SEC, but besides the fact that a school like Florida would miss out on major $$$ from the missed home game (which is the main reason), it is suicide for a team like Florida to make it's schedule harder than what it already is. If they win, it is just another "W" on the schedule and nobody cares. If they lose, they may miss out on a national title. It does Florida no good whatsoever to fly out to California. They are a nationally recognized team, with national exposure, an outstanding home recruiting base in Florida, a very difficult schedule and lots of money waiting for them to do a home game. They have a very difficult OOC game vs. FSU a very difficult OOC vs. Miami every few years, and they have nothing to prove and nothing to gain by doing it.
A school like Tennessee that has no in-state rival like FSU, they have to do it. A school like Auburn does it because their in-state rival is in their conference.
Georgia has Georgia Tech.
LSU has nobody and they fly out and do it.
All depends on the team. But I know a lot of schools dont like to give up home dollars and fill up their schedules with a bunch of home and homes and miss out on a lot of money. I am willing to bet, in a lot of cases, it's not even the coachs decision. The $$ aspect/scheduling probably comes down to the AD and president and board to generate revenue through athletics for the university. They look at the proposed schedule, budgets and money missed out on by doing a home and home and it doesnt look good on paper.
Last edited:
The SEC isn't really different every year. You have to go back to 1976 to see the last time UT UF UG LSU Bama of UB didn't win the SEC title, and that was a split. 1963 was the last time one of the above didn't win the title at all.
I'm not saying the Pac-10 is deeper then the SEC, but I am saying it is important to looking at who played and where they played when determining records.
Sorry, forgot them. I did look at USC though, and they have played every SEC team except Miss, Miss st, Vandy and UK. And they have a winning record vs the SEC.
Historically, USC, UCLA, Washington, and ASU are the best. In the records I saw, OSU and WSU keep popping up, and they have the worst records in the Pac-10. Does LSU really need to play 6 of 7 in Baton Rouge against those 2?
True, but who and where would they play? Beating a Don James coached Washington team in Seattle would be a great accomplishment. Beating the early 1990's Beavers in Gainsville, not so much. At the same time, how different would the records look if UK Vandy, Ole Miss or MSU played USC?
The point I'm trying to make is that you need to look at the teams that played and the venues played in when determining records. Just because I can beat the crap out of any kid in daycare doesn't mean I can hop in the ring with Rampage Jackson and win!
LSU won multiple SEC titles between championships and Auburn won about half of the SEC championships outright or by split in the 1980's, and you can make a strong argument they should have won it all in 1983. How are you determining what makes them elite?
First off Box, I am glad that you are not the rabid mindless type that sometimes even try to pose as reasonable. You wouldn't catch me dead playing that game weren't it for all the misinformation and BS the SEC homies spew all over this board. I'm just tired of it and decided to play their own game with them. I would never stoop so low as to degrade anyone's conference the way they do the rest of CFB typcially.
Outside of SOS, there's no value in rating conferences as long as other aspects of a team's schedule over the season are considered equally. I refuse to buy into the idea that their SOS is SOOOOOOOOO difficult in light of the fact that these "elite" teams load up on patsies more than anyone. Of course that will affect their W/L and ranking even amongs themselves when they play each other.
I don't know where you got the idea that I ever said the conference was bad. What I do think is bad is the way SEC honks conveniently ignore the "boost" in their W/L records and corresponding bump in the rankings because they absolutely intentionally make it easy on themselves (in non-conf games) compared to the rest of the nation. That is totally unsportsmanlike. There is just as much money to be made (if not a lot more) playing a big home/home series with a national contender from OOC as there is staying home playing a Sun Belt team.
But most of all, I get very irritated by some who put down teams that I have studied intimately for months reading up on everything I can find, only to see these kids who are talented and working their asses off get disrespected by ignoramuses who don't know what they are talking about. But that being as it is, and there being nothing I can do other than speak out about this sort of thing, I'd sure like to see them put their teams out on the field and settle it where it belongs.
The more excuses I hear, the more it pisses me off. I call it chickenshit, they misdirect people into thinking it's about money or all those tough games (along with 6 or 7 patsies every year) when there's a fortune to be made and prestige to be gained if they'd just step up and play the teams they claim to be so much better than. It's all bullshit. Sickening unadulterated southern fried bullshit.
Last edited:
This is absolute bullshit. A pure desperate attempt at salvaging anything that hasn't already been disproved. Pathetic nonsense.
And aside from that, so what. In 2000 Auburn was 9-4 and SEC West champions. Not an elite??? Whatever you say. What then is "elite". USC was just 5-7. Then in 2001, USC went 6-6. Auburn 7-5.
Finally we get to 2002. Auburn was 9-4 (suddenly according to you not so "elite") and would have gone 10-3 had USC not beaten them at LA.
At last 2003. Auburn at home vs USC gets shut out. They would have gone 9-4 again giving them their "elite" status had USC not beaten them @ Auburn.
What's elite mean anyway? Better than everyone else? A bigger dick for SEC fans? No I am sure Auburn is not better than everyone else. USC put them there. Now you can abandon them and go find your next SEC hero. But next time, make sure you avoid playing USC or they might end up where USC put Auburn. Into a pile of former elite SEC teams.
Last edited:
UCLA has the best coaches in the nation.
Head Coach: Rick Neuheisel-not the best but has a proven track record
Offensive Coordinator: Norm Chow...the best in the business.
Defensive Coordinator: DeWayne Walker....might be the best as well. Will be a head coach really soon. The only DC in maybe 5 yrs. who has shut down USC.
Pac-10, Pete Carroll to SEC: Scoreboard
September 2, 2008 7:45 PM
Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller
Just the facts.
The Pac-10 is now 10-6 versus the SEC and is 6-2 in games played on the West Coast since the BCS Era began in 1998.
An SEC fan who will not tip his cap to that is simply a big dummy. That's not an insult. It's not an opinion. Those are not words colored by emotion. It's a statement of fact.
To not acknowledge and defer to the most fundamental measure we have as sports fans is to be either stupid of a full of it.
UCLA's 27-24 victory over 18th-ranked Tennessee even earned a tip of the cap over at Heritage Hall because USC coach Pete Carroll, like many of us on the left coast, is also weary of the SEC mythology of absolute dominance that has been woven far more from passion than substance.
"We hear a lot of stuff from the SEC -- I think that's a great statement that UCLA was able to knock those guys off," Carroll said. "I don't know what they'll say from the other side, but you can't make a stronger statement. One of their stronger teams got beaten by a first opportunity for a new coach in a new program. It was a great win for UCLA and I think it does make a big statement. I'm glad it happened."
Now, most Pac-10 fans are clear-eyed. They don't need to validate themselves by insisting that their conference rules. They just hate sloppy argumentation. It offends the refined West Coast sensibilities.
Is the SEC the best conference? Sure. Most years. But the gap is now and has been fairly small. And the overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence is simply this: 10-6.
September 2, 2008 7:45 PM
Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller
Just the facts.
The Pac-10 is now 10-6 versus the SEC and is 6-2 in games played on the West Coast since the BCS Era began in 1998.
An SEC fan who will not tip his cap to that is simply a big dummy. That's not an insult. It's not an opinion. Those are not words colored by emotion. It's a statement of fact.
To not acknowledge and defer to the most fundamental measure we have as sports fans is to be either stupid of a full of it.
UCLA's 27-24 victory over 18th-ranked Tennessee even earned a tip of the cap over at Heritage Hall because USC coach Pete Carroll, like many of us on the left coast, is also weary of the SEC mythology of absolute dominance that has been woven far more from passion than substance.
"We hear a lot of stuff from the SEC -- I think that's a great statement that UCLA was able to knock those guys off," Carroll said. "I don't know what they'll say from the other side, but you can't make a stronger statement. One of their stronger teams got beaten by a first opportunity for a new coach in a new program. It was a great win for UCLA and I think it does make a big statement. I'm glad it happened."
Now, most Pac-10 fans are clear-eyed. They don't need to validate themselves by insisting that their conference rules. They just hate sloppy argumentation. It offends the refined West Coast sensibilities.
Is the SEC the best conference? Sure. Most years. But the gap is now and has been fairly small. And the overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence is simply this: 10-6.
This is one of the most arrogant, assinine (sp), elitist comments i have ever read....usc didnt put auburn anywhere they got to where they are plenty of times by losing to miss st, ole miss, gt, arkansas....i could keep going but you know what i mean. it was proven that auburn was not better than everyone else long before usc showed up into town. So your whole basis that auburn was elite until usc dropped them twice is pretty stupid. I never claimed that Auburn was an SEC hero..and yes if any sec team played usc any given year they would lose and they would all go into this pile of former elite teams you talk of. Here is where you and I differ on sides..When I refer to "Elite," I am speaking of a team in one season of college football..not a snapshot of 5 years of 20 years. You think sec homers are trying to spin this whole auburn thing that they were an elite program every year before they played usc and every year after the 2002/2003 seasons..i dont think anyone is saying that and if they are they are morons. I am sorry friend but the sad truth is auburn is usually a better than average sec team with an elite year here and there..in 02 and 03 they werent elite..even if usc was not on their schedule it still wouldnt have set them up to be "elite" had usc beat them in 2004 then hell yes usc beat an elite auburn sec team. you are too funny m8, good conversation though
First of all, I don't see why a team in retrospect should be considered less than "elite" if they win their division of the conference the year before as Auburn did before their game with USC. 20-20 hindsight years after the fact is not how to rate a team the day the game is played. Perhaps it goes to SOS later on when the poll points are tabulated but not necessarily at the time a game is played. Elite is nothing more than a fuzzy distinction anyway. How often are pre-season polls proven to be mistaken by the end of the year? That's a useless way to determine "elite" but you have to go by it anyway.
Look, if you are saying that there are only one possibly 2 elite teams in the SEC then we have no argument. I cannot stand hearing about all the larger than life teams everyone has to play in that conference year after year. You'd think the whole conference has a monopoly on good football in the country. There are plenty of arrogant asinine homers in your camp that make the rest of you look like a bunch of "better than thou" homies. If I was you, I'd do everything I could to separate yourself from that kind of support and don't don't buy into all of the excuses. If you want to be the best, you have to play the best and the best is out there, not just in the SEC. It would be a big mistake to assume that the SEC is all the challenge any team needs to prove itself worthy of a NC bid. That is arrogance. Nobody buys it. It's a put down of the entire sport everywhere else.
I think EVERY SEC team can be beat on a given Saturday by numerous teams in many places. Some may be exceptionally hot at the time and they may not be so vulnerable and it may take a stellar game by someone to beat them. But the same goes for every conference. I still maintain that the ONLY thing that puts the SEC on a higher level than the rest is the presence of one or two more quality teams. It DOES NOT RUN TOP TO BOTTOM. That top to bottom mantra is as glib and brainless as it gets.
But the main point I am here to make is that the SEC underschedules its games as a whole and that does not help prove anything or support any claim to superiority. You cannot say we'll see when the bowl games are played because that's ignoring a large part of the season and ignoring many opportunities to either get beat or win where it counts. That avoidance costs the conference a lot of credibility because the easy road is not the way champions should handle that distinction if that's what they wish to claim.
Look at what just happened to USC, surpassing UGA for the very reasons I've been pointing out. SOS is very important and that INCLUDES ALL GAMES not just 3 or 4 cherry picked opponents in conference play every year. If that ends up costing LSU a shot at the NC this year, the LSU fans have nobody but their own college president to blame for scheduling sissies. Don't go crying to the BCS or whine about the pollsters who got it wrong. You had your chance to put your best foot forward and flaked out with 4 of the worst teams they could have possibly scheduled and I don't care if they go undefeated. If 3 teams go undefeated, LSU should be out for that reason. (in theory)
I just hope that when they come up with a playoff formula (some day they will), I hope they require NC hopefulls to play hard schedules all season long as much as they can and that includes the preseason and/or non-conf schedule.
In the meantime, most of the SEC is just spoofing everyone because they play too many sissies along with their 3-4 hard conference opponents. To me there's no glory in that and anything to the contrary in suport of what they are doing is an EXCUSE. There are no excuses.
Last edited:
take it to the bank
