Okay, I was playing along nicely with everyone and everything was going swimmingly, until a few SEC fans started shooting their mouths off and started some serious smack with me. What happened to the charm of my Southern friends? What happened to that Southern hospitality? I like the Gators, remember?
I shall return the darts being thrown at me with some firepower of my own.
First, to the fan who started mouthing off about how from 2002-2007, the SEC has dominated the Pac-10, hear me out.
Just what possessed you to use those particular years to cite your claim? Do you have any idea how completely questionable you sound when you cite a specific five-year stretch in one decade?
While don't we make it simple for the SEC fans who think the Pac-10 conference is weak and look at the entire decade?
2000
Alabama 24, UCLA 35 Pac-10 winner
2001
UCLA 20, Alabama 17 Pac-10 winner
2002
Auburn 17, USC 24 Pac-10 winner
Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 Pac-10 winner
2003
USC 23, Auburn 0 Pac-10 winner
LSU 59, Arizona 13 SEC winner
Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 Pac-10 winner
2004
Oregon State 21, LSU 22 SEC winner
2005
Arkansas 17, USC 70 Pac-10 winner
LSU 35, Arizona State 31 SEC winner
2006
USC 50, Arkansas 14 Pac-10 winner
Washington State 14, Auburn 40 SEC winner
Arizona 3, LSU 45 SEC winner
California 18, Tennessee 35 SEC winner
2007 Tennessee 31, California 45 Pac-10 winner
Since the 2000 season, the Pac-10 has a 9-6 advantage over the SEC. Now I know some fine folks in the South will argue that the reason why the Pac-10 has an advantage is because USC is the only team worth anything in the conference. Sound familiar, SEC fans?
Let's take USC out of the equation, but to be fair, let's take out LSU as well. USC had four of their conference's wins, while LSU had four of the SEC's. The new tally is now 5-2, Pac-10 smoking the SEC.
In other words, USC was responsible for less than 50 percent of its conference's wins, but LSU was responsible for 66 percent of their conference's wins. Just who is the "top heavy" conference here?
Want more darts thrown?
Two of the SEC's wins, in 2004 and 2005, were by a combined five points. That's it!
In 2004, LSU beat Oregon State, at Baton Rouge, by one point in OT. The same Oregon State team that went 6-5 that season. Barely a .500 team. A team that lost to Boise State and barely beat New Mexico, took the Bayou Bengals to OT.
The SEC has played 15 games against the Pac-10, and of the six wins they had, only two were on the road. The Pac-10, on the other hand, won four of their nine road games and sent one into OT.
225 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment
Michael Shibley 11 months ago
The only excuse I can make would be that USC beat down Arkansas in 2006 before the real greatness of McFadden came out and I don't thikn Cal would've fallen off the table if those injuries didn't happen. But those are just mild and the final score is in the books so it is not too big of an excuse.
What I really want to see is the SEC and Pac-10 teams play each other in a big bowl game at the end of the year.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Barnett 11 months ago
Lisa, sure the Pac 10 has a 9-6 record vs the SEC, and most Pac 10 fans on other boards are playing the comparitive scoring thing. For instance, they all say "Well no one in the SEC could beat Arkansas as badly as USC."
True.
But, USC couldnt beat their Pac 10 foes nearly as bad as the SEC teams did. For example.....
Auburn 40, Washington St 14
USC 28, Washington St 22
LSU 45, Arizona 3
USC 20, Arizona 3
Tennessee 35, California 18
USC 23, California 9
The SEC has had more ranked teams every year than the Pac 10. And, with 2 SEC/Pac 10 matchups this year, and 3 SEC/Pac 10 matchups next season in 2009, that 9-6 advantage may fall to a 9-11 disadvantage after a 5-0 sweep this year and next. The SEC is the best conference, the Pac 10 is a good conference as well, but they are not the SEC.
Nick
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Michael-
Amen on that! It's too bad the SEC and Pac-10 don't share bowl tie-ins. The only way you can gauge how good they are against each other is head-to-head, so I hear you on that.
However, the SEC fans have been calling the Pac-10 weak, and these stats directly refute that claim. They also claim that the Pac is a top heavy conference when, if anything, the SEC has LSU to thank for most of their wins in head-to-head against the Pac.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Hokanson 11 months ago
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa...
Look, all these records, stats, etc are great. They really are.
But answer me this. What conference puts more players into the NFL than any other conference in history? Answer? The SEC.
I don't care who beat who, or what the circumstances were when they played in all these other games. This is why I don't put a ton of stock into bowl games either. It's a one game deal where anything can happen. It's not the best indicator of who the better conference is.
One game scenario's don't mean much. The SEC, week in and week out, is a tougher conference to play in. Period. The road games are tougher, the stadiums are more difficult to play in, and the coaching is better.
You can list one game scenario's all you want. But if the Pac 10 was the best conference in the nation, the NFL would be drafting more of your players than anyone else. Instead they load up on SEC players year after year.
So in my opinion, the best evaluators of talent of football in the world say that the SEC has the best players in the country. Therefore they have the best conference.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Good talent does not make good teams. Go ask the patriots. And she was not touting one game matchups, as you say, that was over the past 7 years. Keep trying boys!!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Hokanson 11 months ago
Ben,
Pretty sure the Pats went 17-1. I think that's dang good.
Also, the point is the best players are in the SEC. So in my opinion, that means the best football is played in the SEC as well.
If the Giants played the Pats 10 times, I'd say the Pats win 7 of them. Therefore one game doesn't mean the better team won, it means they won that day.
Go ask any college football expert or talent scout where the best football is in the nation and they will answer SEC. You can bring up scores and meaningless regular season games all you want, it doesn't change anything.
Bottom line is, the SEC, WEEK IN AND WEEK OUT, is the toughest conference in the nation. You are playing the best talent every week and it can take it's toll. That's why one game isn't that meaningful to me, come do it in our conference every week. That's all I'm saying.
Edit Comment Cancel
rod wood 11 months ago
Justin,
While you claim that the SEC has the most players drafted into the NFL than the Pac-10, therefore, they play in a better conference than the Pac-10, how would you counter this argument:
USC, a Pac-10 school has had more players inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame than any other University, all-time. They have 11 players inducted with their most recent induction, Bruce Matthews, inducted just last year.
If you want to use players in the NFL as a factor for these conference debates, then the same thing can be stated about this particular statistic as it relates to USC. While getting into the NFL is indeed a worthy accomplishment, it is a much more tougher endeavor to get enshrined into the Pro Football Hall of Fame because that indicates that the players have been were adequately prepared to play at a high level in college which translated to success in the NFL. Seeing that they played their college ball in the Pac-10, it would thus lead to the conclusion that playing in the Pac-10 is not as easy as some other commentators here would have you believe especially since a school from the Pac-10 is responsible for placing the most players in an institution that recognizes only the best of the best.
Also, please check out my comment below about conference debates. I think it is an argument that SEC fans might want to ponder and consider since these conference superiority debates will be heating up with football season.
rodwood
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Justin look at the 2008 draft i am pretty sure both the SEC and Pac 10 had 34 players drafted. however that is the same amount among 10 schools rather than 12.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jake Lew 11 months ago
Lisa - you poor soul. Remember me from last year, JakeLew? Didn't hurt SO bad to be proven WRONG at the end of the year about strength of schedule in the SEC vs. other conferences? REmember - you shot off your mouth about it half way through the season when you thought you might be right, and I came back to remind you HOW ABSOLUTELY WRONG you were at the ned of the year when 5 of the 10 SOS's where SEC teams, and 7 out of the top 14. HAHAHAHA!!!! You are not even worth my time anymore - JakeLew ALL DAY LONG on you - all day.
Edit Comment Cancel
Peter Mykytyn 11 months ago
Jake...where do you get your information? According to Sagarin 3 of the top 10 SOS's are SEC and the PAC has No's 1) UCLA 2) Washington 5) Oregon 6) Arizona 7) California 10) Stanford. That's 6 of the top 10 SOS in the country. Please tell me where you get your "stuff".
Peter
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 11 months ago
This is what happens when you don't get enough intersectional match ups to understand and respect your competitiors for a national title.
There should be a renewal of the Alabama-Sou Cal rivalry. Bama and SC have been playing each other off and on since 1938. There is no reason for the Trojans not to visit the southeast and reinstall the respect the had from the 1970 and 1978 games with Alabama. Likewise, the Tide should visit the city of angels, it would be good for everyone. Auburn had the great series with the Trojans earlier this decade, and the game in Los Angeles was great. The next year at Auburn was an eye opener for SEC fans. Tennessee has played UCLA and Cal several times over the past 40 something years. Georgia has, well, Georgia hasn't played a game outside of the old Confederacy since 1965, but they are going to Arizona State this season, so there is hope for great competition between the SEC and PAC10.
I for one couldn't agree more Lisa, let's put the pressure on these leagues to mix it up.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
BT-
I agree, but the problem is simple- many of the SEC teams refuse to do a home-and-home format. LSU invited USC to play them at Baton Rouge recently, but LSU would not do a return trip to Los Angeles. If you look at their schedule, almost 75% of the time, they are playing home games. Eventually, it will hurt them.
Tennessee has made huge gains in my eyes...they are scheduling home-and-home games with BCS teams. Georgia has done the same. Good luck with LSU doing that. They had some open dates available to play some BCS teams and instead, took an FCS team (App State) to play in Baton Rouge. They scheduled The Citadel again as well in the future.
The Trojans have no problem playing SEC teams in a home-and home format. They are 4-0, winning both road and home games against Arkansas and Auburn in the last ten years. I would love to see Florida and USC mix it up...two fast teams on the same field.....now that would be a great series!
Finally, if the SEC wants to play a West Coast team, schedule Fresno State! They'll play anyone, anywhere, any time and put on a great show.
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 11 months ago
You're on to something there with Fresno State. You know South Carolina used to play all over the country (including Sou Cal) when they were an independent but since they joined the SEC in '92 they've taken several steps back from traveling outside the conference. There might be a conference philosophy that "so many tough games, you need weak out of conf foes for sure wins. Arkansas was destoyed in their matches with Sou Cal. But are the other schools in the PAC10 so strong each year that they could beat the SEC top to bottom? That is where you're going to find an argument in here.
I would point out to you that Appalachian State is a real challenge for LSU. I'l tell you right now they can beat LSU at LSU. The Mountaineers have won 3 national titles in a row and their QB is so good he makes the SEC QBs look like they're running in mud. This is not a "small college" team, they have great depth, huge line size, and a track team for athletes. They averaged 43 points a game last year. This is the most powerful "small college" team of all time in my opinion. I have always believed Don Coryell's San Diego State teams from 1966-69 with Haven Moses and Don Horn was the best followed by some of Jim Donnan's Marshall teams and Tressel's Youngstown teams. This App State is out of their league. App State is one of the strangest and oddest collections of players ever put together. How the coach got all of those different type players to come up to the mountain top and play is beyond me.
Now, LSU should be ashamed for scheduling The Citadel. You remember what happened when Auburn scheduled the Citadel in 2004 and didn't get into the Orange Bowl to play SC for the title? The Citadel can only hurt LSU.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 11 months ago
First off in LSU's defense they were just trying to fill a one game slot they had open.
i would hope the ath dept would look in the future to playing USC in a home and home, i think both teams would love it.
secondly, i am not aware of LSU scheduling the Citadel anytime soon. this does not appear on LSU official website unless it's brand new or something.
http://www.lsusports.net/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=27811&SPID=2164&DB_OEM_ID=5200&KEY=&Q_SEASON=2009
thirdly you tallk about LSU OT victory over Ore st . but that was the first game of the season and teams were still shaking the rust off. how good did USC look last year against idaho?
besides that, you do a great job of defending the PAC 10. this is a great article. i love the SEC, but i'm not really that adamant about downgrading (my mike gundy word) another conference. good stuff, lisa!
Edit Comment Cancel
Liger 11 months ago
Let the record show that AU and lots of other SEC schools (including LSU, I would imagine) try desperately to schedule major non-conference opponents, but get no takers. In the past couple of years Auburn has made inquiries with Michigan, Miami, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State and Texas, but got no play.
And since the Pac One has added 9th conference game, it's virtually impossible for an SEC team to get a game with them. I don't mean to be too blunt, but I'm honestly sick of hearing that we don't schedule this or that team. Maybe you should consider the possibility that we're trying and maybe we can't get them to schedule us.
The SEC and Pac 10 rarely play and you automatically assume it's OUR fault. Why? You think we're afraid or something? Look at our bowl record, which is the very thing you're avoiding, and you'll see we do OK against other conferences.
Plus you guys don't have to play in a conference championship game. Before an SEC team can play for the NC we have to play another game against a top SEC team, the Pac 10 and Big 10 don't have to play an additional game.
Plus when AU went undefeated, the NCAA final statistics said that we had the 5th toughest schedule in the country yet all folks seems to care about were our 3 non-conference games. SC's 2004 schedule wasn't even in the top 10. You guys stack the cards so you can't lose...look at all the facts and you'll realize why the NFL has more SEC players than any other conference.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Liger-
First, you need to understand something. I admire the toughness of the SEC play. You have no argument from me on that. I also think the BCS picked the right teams last year and LSU deserved their trophy.
As far as scheduling, LSU did indeed invite USC to play in Baton Rouge, but did not want to do a home-and-home format. If you look at LSU schedules....please note that in the last ten years , one handful have been scheduled out of state. Since 2003, they have played exactly TWO non-conference games out of state. That's two games out of twenty possible games.
LSU does not do home-and-home formats, for the most part, with non-conference teams out of state. They have done it with three Pac-10 teams, as that was the only way they could get the deal approved.
I encourage you to check out LSU's schedules for the last ten years. You will be shocked. Georgia hasn't left the state for a non-conference regular season game since 1965!
Edit Comment Cancel
john brewer 11 months ago
tennessee has no natural out of conference rivalries such as uga-clemson, florida-fsu, uga -gt........
memphis doesn't count so scheduling a tough out of conference game amoung all ducks every year or two doesn't hurt them. bear bryant used to do that masterfully. play 10 out of conference games that you can't lose and make it up wth the every other year national game on natonal tv.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Oregon has home and homes with Tenn and UGA in the future
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 11 months ago
Oregon will be in shock when they travel to Georgia. The atmosphere will be like the Civil War Game.
Oregon will enjoy the atmosphere at Tennessee, it's a great setting, wonderful history, and friendly foes. Lots of out of the area schools have visited Tennessee over the years, they know how to make you feel welcome, and at the same time, beat you.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
well both are a number of years out. I think some of the frosh will play out there.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Good for them! That's great news!
Edit Comment Cancel
Thomas Brown 11 months ago
Wow Lisa great article. Have u been reading my series about how the pac 10 rules the sec?
We should form an alliance
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Thomas-
Sorry, I missed it! This was in response to some SEC fans who said the Pac-10 was weak. I had to swim through pages of USAToday.com to look up the head-to-head competition within these two teams. (Never again am I doing that!)
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian B 11 months ago
Hey, Lisa: http://football.stassen.com/
Now you don't have to waste time, it's a database with pretty much everything you'd want to know about matchups. You can even check conference records against every other conference and find all the scores. Would've found that info in about 30 seconds.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 11 months ago
Lisa,
I usually love your articles. However, this one is a little askew in my opinion. I agree that filtering out the SC wins and the LSU wins is the valid thing to do given that those programs account for such a large percentage of the totals. In other words, how did the rest of the conference do? However, in the remaining 5 wins that the Pac 10 had, 2 were against Miss. State (a perennial SEC cellar dweller except for their unique situation last year) and 2 were against a Bama team that during that time period was dealing with the after-effects of some pretty severe NCAA probations as well as riding a coaching carousel that has not often been seen in college football history (Franchione, Price, Dubose, Shula...all within a few year period). I don't think in this case head to head is a good comparison.
I'm kind of against head to head comparisons anyway because any team can win on a given day. Look at USC-Stanford last year. If those 2 teams lined up every week for 6 months and played each other, Stanford might win twice. But on that day, with all the interceptions that USC gave them at the expense of Booty being injured, Stanford won. Is there a person in America that believes that Stanford had a better team last year than USC did? No. So does the fact that Stanford won that game mean that they were better? Certainly not. It means they won a game in an extremely improbable way. Winning a game or games doesn't make a team or teams better than the other team. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as an "upset" (you know...when the "better" team doesn't win the game).
This same concept could be applied to Michigan/Appy State, OklahomaBoise State, Oklahoma/West Virginia, and others.
The very best format for determining the strength of one conference against another would be to rank the members and have 1 play 1, 2 play 2, 3 play 3, etc. But that's never going to happen.
I think the next best scenario here would be to look at bowl games. The SEC was an incredible 7-2 in bowl games last year including being 2-0 in the 2 BCS level games they played (national championship and Sugar). They have an undefeated 4-0 record in BCS national championship games since the BCS started 10 years ago and no other conference has won more than 2 (and it was the Big 12, not the Pac 10). Even the 2 SEC teams that lost last year had extenuating circumstances. Arkansas was being coached in the Cotton Bowl by an interim coach and skeletal staff against a team in Missouri that had a chip on its shoulder that they weren't playing in a BCS level bowl when Kansas was and they had just beaten Kansas. The other was Florida losing to a possessed Michigan team that probably played their best ball game of the year because they were trying to not become the first senior class that had both never beaten Ohio State and never won a bowl as well as trying to send Lloyd Carr out on a high note. Had Houston Nutt (who had just beaten LSU) stayed for that game and Michigan not been playing in Lloyd Carr's final game, it is not inconceivable that the SEC might have gone 9-0. Even a split of those 2 games would have been an incredible 8-1.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
while that is true about Miss State they lost to Oregon who was 8th and 3rd in the Pac 10 in the 2 years they played. so 1 comparable 1 lopsided.
Alabama was 3-8 and 7-5 vs UCLA who was 6-6 and 7-4. fairly comparable.
the 5th was the Cal tenn which was 7-6 cal over10-4 tenn
other way was 9-4 Tenn over 10-3 Cal
6-6 Washington State lost to 11-2 Auburn
a 1-1 for balance there.
Edit Comment Cancel
JASON T 11 months ago
GREAT RESPONSE!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tim McGhee 11 months ago
This is one of the best I've read of its genre, Lisa.
Head-to-head comparisons, the genre, make for good ink. It's interesting, yet confusing, like Obama-McCain. If you take all the noise and static out of the 2008 presidential compaign, you find two men who agree on many things. Same here with the SEC-Pac 10 debate. Remove all the hype and you find two conferences that play outstanding college football. It takes a homer to successfully argue against your point, Lisa, but you were dangerously approaching that line, too. So many assumptions have to be made for anyone to spin the data in their direction.
As well, I would have to be delusional to get deep in this arguement. I represent the Big East.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Wunderlich 11 months ago
Remember how Rudy Carpenter got smacked around a lot thanks to a poor offensive line? Now look at how good Georgia was at getting to quarterbacks last season: http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2008/7/28/577938/2007-sec-defensive-sack-ra
I think you'll find out why a lot of people think Georgia will win comfortably.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Key words "last season"
Edit Comment Cancel
David Wunderlich 11 months ago
People tend to project one season based on the previous. She asked, "But what's with all the smack about Arizona State laying down to the Bulldogs?" Well, there's your reason why.
As for this season, ASU is replacing three starters with guys with almost no experience, one of whom played defensive line last season. Georgia, on the other hand, returns all but one of its defensive linemen and all three linebackers.
In other words, Rudy Carpenter will likely spend a lot of time on his back when Georgia comes to town.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
David-
ASU does indeed have some O-line issues. I also think ASU will show up to play. Erickson and staff will be adjusting plays to account for the inexperienced line, but Georgia's O-line is almost all sophs! The Dawgs let Troy score 34 points on them....their D might be slightly over-hyped in my opinion.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Wunderlich 11 months ago
Troy scored a touchdown with 5 seconds to go to make the score closer than it actually was. Plus, there was a letdown factor after the big, emotional Florida win.
They held Oklahoma State to 14 (season avg. was 35), Hawaii to 10 (season avg. was 43), and Kentucky to 13 (season avg. was 36.5). Only Tennessee scored above its season average against them, and everyone has a bad week or two during the season.
The Georgia defense was good, believe me. With nine starters returning, it will probably be even better this year.
Edit Comment Cancel
john brewer 11 months ago
lisa didn't see nor knows anything about the troy-uga game. or she would not have pretended it was as close as the score. CMR isn't going to like it when i tell him you are talking such lisa.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Scott 11 months ago
SEC National Champioships this decade = 3
PAC 1(0) National Championships this decade = 1
Enough said.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
if it is Pac 1 based on 1 championship by 1 team coulndt we call the SEC the 2EC since only 2 out of that oh so tough 12 teams has NC??
Edit Comment Cancel
JASON T 11 months ago
AMEN BROTHER
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Brian-
The Pac- 10 has TWO national championships. And you missed the gist of the article. No one is dismissing the SEC as an average conference. I happen to think they are a great conference.
But the SEC this decade has been owned by the Pac-10. Nice try to spin it, but it didn't work. If you want to claim superiority over the Big 12 and Big Ten, go for it. But you can't include the Pac-10.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Scott 11 months ago
David- The PAC 1 thing was developed a ew years back when the PAC 10 was getting all kinds of love even though SC was the only real tea inthe conference. I know there were a few good teams in the conference last year, but that isn't typical. Just good natured ribbing.
Lisa- USC won the NC in 2004. Who is the other PAC 10 NC? And don't say USC's phony claim to a shared title in '03 - we all know that was just an AP revolt agaist the BCS. Most of the voters admitted to that and further admitted that they didn't think USC really deserved it. If you don't play in the title game, you don't get a title. We all signed up for the system before the season began, and we all lived with the results. You can't beat the #4 team in the nation and claim a NC. Hell, in 2003 LSU had to beat the #5 team in the nation just to win the friggin SEC!
LSU = Undisputed National Champs of 2003. Only PAC 10 and USC homers claim otherwise. Let's try to kee it credible here.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
so are you saying we should dismiss any AP awarded National Championship through all time or just the 1 you dont agree with
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeff Allen 11 months ago
Ok Brian, since we're on the topic of credibility, can you present evidence that "...that was just an AP revolt agaist the BCS. Most of the voters admitted to that and further admitted that they didn't think USC really deserved it..." ?
Really? A majority of poll voters admitted this? Even though USC was ahead of LSU in both the coaches and AP poll for the final 8 weeks of the regular season....this was all one big conspiracy on behalf of the voters to "stick it" to the BCS? I'd love to see these alleged on-the-record admissions.
If the coaches poll were not contractually obligated to vote for LSU as the national champion (3 coaches dissented anyway), do you really think they would have overtaken USC in the final poll?
I'm not saying they have a rightful claim to any national title from 2003, but your comments are just as ridiculous as the comments you are ridiculing in this case.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 11 months ago
david, you wrote
"so are you saying we should dismiss any AP awarded National Championship through all time or just the 1 you dont agree with"
no just the 1 that didn't fall in line with all the others since we changed to the BCS system.
the BCS was put into place to get #1 to play #2 at the end of the season b/c of stubborn bowl ties (cough rose bowl cough) prevented this from happening.
i'm not saying oklahoma deserved to be in that game over USC (cuz i think you need to win your conference to be in that game) but that's the way it went down in the system everyone agreed to. if it had been another team other than the one located in the world's 2nd largest media market, no one woulda cared. much like the pollsters cared very little about Auburn in 04.
college football used to be a popularity contest. that was the antiquated way. the BCS is the missing link btwn the old way and a playoff system. the rose bowl is the main reason we don't have a playoff and probably won't anytime soon.
but things are getting better and hopefully we are getting to a place where championships will be decided on the field and not by a whiny press organization who decided to take their ball and go home in '03.
i'm glad the AP has removed themselves from the polling, they will not be missed as much as they think.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Scott 11 months ago
Jeff-
Don't attack the messenger. And I'm not suggesting that we disregard all AP titles, but when you sign up under the BCS system at the beginning of the year and then pull out at the end of the year just because you don't agree with who the computers put in the title game, it proves beyond all doubt that it was spiteful rather than thoughtful.
I'll make it simple for all of you. Go visit USC's trophy room. They have 1 crystal football. Go to LSU's trophy room. They have 2 crystal footballs.
This is not a debate. At least not a real one.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Justin the Rose bowl had nothing to do with why USC didn't play for it.
The Rose Bowl is not the only reason for no playoff either. only the SEC and ACC even wanted to discuss it. the leaves 9 other conference and Notre Dame against it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeff Allen 11 months ago
Brian,
Your response directed at me had nothing to do with my comment. I even went as far as to tell you that I don't agree with USC fans claiming a 2003 national championship, so I'm not even convinced that you meant to address your comment at me.
But to just spout off a bunch of nonsense with nothing to back it up - and then get called on it - and then completely dodge the issue - makes you look bad.
And you talk about credibility..
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Scott 11 months ago
Jeff-
I didn't dodge anything. I simply just forgot that you tried to call me out on something when I was replying. You want a reply? Here you go. After the '03 AP revolt I called and e-mailed as many AP voters as I could get a hold of to have an "off the record conversation" about what really happened. Over 90% of the voters I talked to (don't remember how many I got a response from but it was a lot) said that A) They thought USC should have gone instead of OU (I completely agree) and that B) the #1 vote for USC by the AP was orchestrated by a group of AP voters that were pissed at how the BCS just dismissed their suggestions preseason as to avoiding a situation just like this. If the title game required that both teams were conference champions then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I thought we were supposed to be serious sports journalists here so I wasn't expecting for someone to demand a link like a message board nazi every time some information comes up that they weren't previed to. Sorry.
Let's just agree to disagree or move on.
Edit Comment Cancel
Chad Bradbury 11 months ago
Yeah, and so Brian, if the tables had been turned and your vaunted #5 win kept your from the BCS, LSU athletic department would've turned down the AP championship and not claim it? Yeah friggen right. Grow up LSU fans. 2003 = 2 Champions. LIVE WITH IT.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeff Allen 11 months ago
Brian, I asked for evidence mainly because YOU were spouting off about credibility while making some pretty hefty accusations and demonstrating no credibility of your own. I don't know whether you're someone to be taken seriously or just another internet troll. And your evidence is a bunch of alleged e-mail conversations with actual AP voters? Let me guess - you're not going to produce any tangible evidence anytime soon?
Fact is - USC moved ahead of LSU after LSU lost at home to Florida in early October, and they voted USC ahead of LSU for the rest of the season. This is consistent voting as far as I'm concerned. You maintain your place in the pecking order until you lose. USC lost early and fell behind LSU. LSU lost later and fell behind USC. Neither team lost again. I don't see any conspiracy in this. And I don't see where any "orchestrated effort" to vote USC ahead of LSU was ever necessary in the first place.
Going into bowl season, USC had a 15 point lead over LSU. After LSU played in the most boring title game in the BCS' short history against a previously-exposed Oklahoma team and USC handled Michigan relatively easily in the Rose Bowl, that 15 point lead doubled in the final AP poll. Not all that out-of-the-ordinary if you ask me. Not to mention, anyone that would admit to an orchestrated, collusive vote would probably be admitting to some kind of violation of journalistic ethics - would a stupid college football poll be worth tarnishing their integrity? I have my doubts.
We don't necessarily disagree on anything - so there's nothing to agree to disagree on. Your story just doesn't make any sense to me. And your insistence on explaining "what happened" without actually coming forward with any evidence makes your story all the more confusing and suspicious.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ron Johnson 11 months ago
Lisa---
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't USC lose to Ohio State at the beginning of the decade in the national championship game? So far, Ohio State is 1-2 in National Championships. If you're trying to get USC some respect, it won't happen. USC had a shot at the NC, but they lost to UCLA while Florida beat Arkansas for the SEC.
USC used to be intimidating, but at this point, the only way that anything can be proven about the Pac 10 is pitting them against constant powerhouses in other conferences. Isn't this the same USC team that lost to an underrated Oregon State team a couple of years back?
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Ron you are wrong USC and Ohio State havent played in a bowl against eachother since 1984
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt B 11 months ago
Donald: you make Lisa's point for her. Of course you don't like to use head-to-head comparisons here, because the SEC comes out looking bad against the Pac-10 during the 21st century. But then you say "Look at USC-Stanford last year. If those 2 teams lined up every week for 6 months and played each other, Stanford might win twice." Isn't this Lisa's point? She's not looking at one or two games; she's looking at all the SEC vs. Pac-10 matchups long range, over a span of 7 years, so as to diminish the force of any anomalies...
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 11 months ago
Matt,
You're not making any sense here. You claim Lisa's looking at the matchups "long range." If you want to talk "long range" then let's do that. The SEC is somewhere near a 60-30 margin over the Pac 10 all time (I'm rounding because I've seen it several times in people's comments on these boards but don't remember the exact numbers and don't know a site where to look that up myself). The 21st century may sound like a long time to you since it has the word "century" in it but it's only 7 seasons. I gave solid reasons on the flaws of using head to head comparisons that are selective. In her post, Lisa rails against the fan of the SEC that wants to use 2003-2007 for comparison. Yet she only adds 3 more seasons which includes 4 total games (all won by the Pac 10 coincidentally) to that number. So when you go back and add in 2000-2002, the Pac 10 is ahead where if you don't the SEC is. You see how confusing it can be? But either 5 or 7 seasons is still a short period when there aren't many that games and 2 teams account for most of the wins on both sides.
There's an old saying that I believe came from the profession of journalism. That is "follow the money." The NFL throws big-time money into the player selection process because they know it will affect their team's fortunes for many seasons to come. That being said, they choose to spend their money mostly on SEC players.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Follow the money and the NFL to determine the talent in a confernce. The PAC 10 had more overall draft choices in the 2008 draft. It was by 1 but that is still out of only 10 schools instead of 12.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt B 11 months ago
Donald: Lisa says it herself at the end of the article - The SEC is 59-37-5 (.609) all-time against the Pac-10... No one is disputing this kind of long range dominance. (Though I'm not sure how those stats are compiled; after all, the SEC in its current 12-team make-up only became a reality in the 1990s, and the Pac-10 went to 10 from 8 in the 1980s, I think. So it's not clear which teams are counted as part of the conferences, or which years count as being conference members [eg, are we starting in the 1920s?]; but leave that aside.) I think the real point is that you have SEC fans mouthing off in recent years about how they are so much better NOW than any other conference, including the Pac-10. If SEC fans are claiming that HISTORICALLY they have been better than the Pac-10, that's one thing; but most of them, I think, are claiming that the SEC is CURRENTLY better than the Pac-10... and the recent matchups don't back that up.
Any SEC fan that DOES want to use 2003-07 as a comparison doesn't have much of an argument anyway: it's only 6-5 in favor of the SEC. That's nearly a tie. But including 2000-02 does have this in favor of it: it shows that other teams than USC beat SEC opponents - USC only won 1 of 4 of those matchups; other Pac-10 teams won the other 3.
Moreover, you say that "2 teams account for most of the wins on both sides." First off, that's just false, since USC won only 4 of the 9 Pac-10 wins from that period: Oregon and UCLA had 2 apiece (though it is true on the SEC side: LSU won 4 out of the 6 SEC wins. I guess the SEC is the top-heavy conference, huh?). Second, I don't see how it matters. All this really shows is that a given team (like USC or LSU) has scheduled more games against the other conference (and won them), and so they've had more chances to win.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt B 11 months ago
Brian: you're counting an LSU NC against an Oklahoma team that had lost 2 straight and shouldn't have been there (when USC got screwed in '03)? I'm sure Pac-10 fans feel that's an unfair counting; at least if you're going to count LSU's '03 as part of the SEC's national championships, you should count USC's AP crown from that year; thus it would be SEC = 3, Pac-10 = 2...
Don't forget that things might have been very different had USC been able to play LSU for the NC that year (and had Oregon gotten to play Miami in '01).
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 11 months ago
oklahoma lost one before the NC, you make it sound as if they lost two before going into the NC game. their 2nd straight loss was the NC game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Liger 11 months ago
Who has the best conference...the answer is simple, ask the NFL.
SEC is #1 of course...like even you are surprised by that...the Pac One is 4th, behind the ACC and Big 11.
http://www.secsports.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=2&url_article_id=6307&change_well_id=2
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Individual talent does not a team make. If the best talent always ended up winning why isn't USC and LSU in the championship game every year? Because that talent has to translate into wins, and that is not always the case.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt B 11 months ago
Liger: no doubt the SEC has the most. But the link you provide is terrible in its content: I find two outright contradictions it makes, so I'm not inclined to trust much more of its other information.
It says "The SEC had five of its schools with 30-or-more-players on NFL rosters. No other conference had two." But its very next sentence points out that 2 ACC schools have have 30-or-more: "Nationally, Miami (Fla.) leads with 46 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Ohio State with 44, Florida State with 41"... It also says "Among SEC schools, Georgia was first with 37 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Tennessee with 36,..." But two paragraphs later it says that Tennessee has 36 and Georgia 35.
Edit Comment Cancel
Liger 11 months ago
One other problem Lisa, you're right that a .500 Pac 10 team (Cal) beat UT 45-31, but once again in your desperate quest to tell half truths, you forgot to mention that Bama (6-6) beat UT much worse than that, (41-17) and that they allowed Kentucky to score 50 on them and UF beat them 59-20...it's not like UT knifed through the SEC. They benefited from the fact that UGA got a slow start.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Wow, want to add anymore caveats to your rant there? At the end of the day, UT was beaten by CAL, and UT was the divisional champ, no matter whatever else happened. Deal with it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Liger 11 months ago
Yet another fact you failed to mention---wow I really could be here all day, but I've got to get back to work--anyway, you proudly state that SC beat Ark by more points than LSU did in 2006. But you didn't mention that Auburn whipped WSU 40-14 (I was at that game--it could've been worse believe me) in 2006, but SC only beat WSU 28-22. And then that same Ark team that was beaten soundly by SC creamed AU.
In the end that doesn't prove anything, but I use it to illustrate the fact that you are incredibly picky concerning the facts you choose to present.
The reality is the only way you can measure conferences is by thier success in the NFL...there's just no other true head-to-head way to compare an entire conference to anther...even the bowl games are inadequate for that purpose.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
Lisa, you are one of my favorite writers, here & at fox, BUT on this issue you are wrong. your 15 game sample is so small and so few of the teams from both conferences are involved that it can't be the only basis of comparision. every other way of looking at this issue points out to the SEC being the superior conference.
since the inception of the BCS the SEC has won 4 national championships with 3 different teams. the Pac 10 has won 1 national championship and only had one team even take a sniff at the game!!
without usc the Pac 10 has nothing to talk about on the national stage in 10 years. in addition to tennessee, florida & LSU winning the NC, Georgia finished #2 in the polls last year and auburn went 13-0 in 2004.
hey, letting the Pac 10 win 9 out of 15 games is embarrassing, but in the overall picture it is just not that important.
(and you are always going to have your usc bias and I am always going to be a dixie redneck, we just can't change who we are!!!)
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Liger-
Was Washington State a divisional champ?
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Rob, you are conveniently forgetting to mention the multiple snubs the pac-10 has had in the chamionship game. No other team has sniffed it? How about Oregon in 2001, or Arizona a few years earlier?? Wow, your bias really shines through here. I have no dog in this fight as I am a Minnesota fan and we all know how weak the big 10 is. But SEC fans sure are arrogant when their "supremacy" is questioned. Unfortunately for both the SEC and pac-10 fans, the rest of the nation sees this as a rather close race with neither conference looking to be too far ahead of the other.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian B 11 months ago
Rob, all your stats about who plays for national championships...all arguments that puts the SEC above the Pac-10 are subjective. SEC coaches have more votes than the Pac-10 in the coaches' poll (7-5). There are 14 AP voters from SEC states. There are 7 from Pac-10 states, by far the least of any major conference. Think THAT might be why they get into national title games?
BTW, the only way a Pac-10 team has been allowed to be in a national title game is by finishing the season undefeated. Any time they lose at least ONE game, the polls/BCS finds SOME way to put an inferior team in over the Pac-10 team (Oregon '01, USC '03).
Oh, and the SEC OUGHT to be by far and away the best conference, especially much better than the Pac-10. How sad is it that they produce the most NFL talent, pay $500,000 more PER COACH than the Pac-10 (2007 salaries were used for this calculation), and yet still lose the majority of games against the Pac-10 despite playing most of the games at their own home stadiums?
Don't forget that 22-21 LSU win over Oregon State was due to THREE missed extra points, and I'm pretty sure Arizona State gave LSU the win in the 4th quarter due to not wanting to be the assholes who got a home game when they were supposed to play LSU after Katrina (they gave up 28 points in the 4th quarter after giving up 7 in the first 3).
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt B 11 months ago
Liger fails to point out that USC's 28-22 win over WSU in 2006 was on the road at WSU; and that Auburn's 40-14 win over WSU that year was at Auburn. It's not surprising that visiting teams don't play as well as as they could, since they're on the road and playing in a hostile environment. But of course, you must know that because SEC teams avoid playing on the road as much as possible.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Bergman 11 months ago
I'm not gonna take up for the Pac-10 but I definitely feel your pain when it comes to SEC snobbery. As a Texas alum living in Atlanta, it's unbearable.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Justin-
I have great respect for the SEC and do happen to think they are a very good conference, and have dominated some conferences lately. My whole point was they have not dominated the Pac-10 this decade, that's it! Some blogger made some disparaging remarks about how weak the Pac-10 was and how they had to schedule tough conference games because they are weak. He then added that the SEC is clearly the better conference. While I won't disaagree that the SEC is one of the best conferences out there, they aren't better than the Pac when you look at head-to-head competition.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lew Wright 11 months ago
Hey Lisa,
Great article! But when it comes to SEC fans, don't confuse them with facts. Just kidding.
The SEC is one of the best in the nation because of the quality universities that comprise the conference.
The same can be said for the Pac-10. We could rant on about how Pac-10 athletic teams have more national championships than any other conference, but what's the point?
The best football conference in the nation, year in and year out? Well, it's the one you follow as fan. Without fanaticism, there's a distinct lack of color and charisma to college athletics. Kind of like the NFL, NBA and MLB.
Write one Lisa!
Cougar Lew
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Rupert 11 months ago
Until Pete Carrol and the Rose bowl shows the rest of the Country that they have the NADS to pit USC against one of the BIG four GA, FLA,LSU or Aub, we in the SEC will know that the SEC rules.
The Pac-10 has USC and it is down hill from there. I will bet any Pac-10 fan that I can pick the Conference champion in the Pac-10 for the next five years, my pick is guess who, USC, can you pick the next five SEC champions with as much accuracy? The SEC has FLA, LSU, GA,AUB, and it slowly goes down hill from there, no comparison. But don't get me wrong , I feel the same way about the New York Yankees that yall feel about the SEC.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
Did you miss where USC played Auburn a couple years ago?? or the point of LSU wanting USC to go to Louisiana but refused to go to Cali??
You also probably believed USC would skate through the conference the last couple years but the didn't. Unless you count 2 losses to different teams in each of the last 2 seasons along with games decided by 7 or less with the other 5 Pac 10 schools skating through.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Mark-
The Sun Belt can make that same claim- it's hard to win in their conference, and it's hard to pick a champ.
As far as USC having Nads, well lets see...we have Virginia, OSU and ND on our sked. Who does LSU have? App State, Troy, North Texas and Tulane.
While the SEC may rule over many conferences this decade, they can't say that about the pac-10.
Edit Comment Cancel
Give 'em Hell Devils 11 months ago
The rose bowl has tie in with the pac and the big 10. believe me no one from the pac-10 wanted illinois in there as it eliminated ASU from any chance of the fiesta bowl and therefore cost the Pac a ton of money by not having two bcs teams. SC is a great team yes but to say no one else in the conference competes is riddiculous. ASU shared the title last year and Oregon should have won it outright had Dixon not suffered a freak accident in a game vs arizona. If Dixon stays upright the ducks win the NC last year, LSU doesnt even get a chance to play for it. SC also plays BCS level teams every year OOC, name the last one to beat them, texas in 05, whereas Stanford, Oregon, Oregon state, UCLA have all beaten SC in the last few years, with many other pac teams taking them to the final minute
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Augustin, Jr. 11 months ago
David,
In a radio interview on ESPN radio 1300 Baton Rouge on July 19, one of LSU's senior associate athletic directors (don't remember which one), was asked to talk about the future of LSU's football non-conference scheduling. He mentioned how long it takes to schedule non-conference opponents (up to ten years) and how often opponents opt out of playing against LSU or postpone their meeting.
For instance, LSU and Virginia Tech scheduled a home and home series for 2002 and either 2004 or 2005. The 2002 game was played as scheduled but the second game was postponed by Tech until 2007 because a mid-major opponent agreed to play them in Blacksburg ( I think it was scheduled for sept. 11, 2004 when Tech hosted Western Mich. and LSU filled in the hole with Arkansas state). Tech postponed it because they were able to get more money out of another home game (can't necessarily blame them). In short notice, LSU scheduled what they could.
He mentioned how LSU has tried to schedule a home and home series with USC but since USC plays 9 conference games along with one non-conference BCS game almost every year (Arkansas recently and now OSU), they didn't want to schedule LSU. According to the senior associate athletic director, LSU has also tried to schedule a series with Michigan. Michigan's response was that they will not schedule a series with LSU until Notre Dame is off their schedule. That's not happening for another 20-25 years.
There's no way that LSU refused to play a game at a talent rich place like southern California if USC agreed to play a game at Tiger Stadium. The Assoc. Athletic Director mentioned that one big motivation for scheduling non-conference games on the road is recruiting. If southern California-area prospects see LSU beat USC, they may be more likely to play for LSU than USC. USC has already taken prospects from Louisiana (Booty, Joe McKnight).
At the end of the interview, he said that LSU is trying to schedule a neutral game at Reliant Stadium in Houston against a good opponent (he wouldn't mention the opponent) for 2013. Maybe it will be Texas or Texas A&M.
I don't think BCS teams necessarily schedule cupcakes to get an easy opponent. I think cupcakes are often the only replacement in a short time when a better opponent backs out. It's also a money issue. 2 games for a non-BCS opponent at 92,000 seat Tiger Stadium with the visiting team getting whatever revenue share they get is more beneficial for both teams than playing one game at Tiger Stadium and the other at a glorified high school stadium. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but that's the reality.
As for the PAC-10/SEC debate, I think the 15 games is too small of a sample. Personally, I look at bowl games in the BCS-era. The PAC-10 has a losing record in bowl games over the past 10 years and the SEC has better record in 7 of the past 10 years.
Heading into this year, I think The SEC, PAC-10 and Big XII are all very close at the top. It's hard to distinguish between the three. I don't think an SEC team will play in the title game this season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 11 months ago
Paul,
It was LSU associate ath director verge ausberry who was interviewed. i heard him interviewed on 1210 am and heard him say tha same thing about michigan but didn't hear about usc but i missed the beginning of the interview. anyway, great comments.
Edit Comment Cancel
Will Shelton 11 months ago
To suggest that one conference has "owned your behind" over another or that anyone is clearly heads above the SEC is absurd.
The head-to-head numbers mean this: USC has bragging rights on Auburn and Arkansas, UCLA on Alabama, and that's about it. Tennessee beat Cal by 17 in '06 and Cal returned the favor by 14 last year, that's a split. I hope LSU fans don't get their kicks by saying something as stupid as that they own the state of Arizona. Oregon won two games against Mississippi State teams that were a combined 5-19 in those two seasons; it's numbers like that which make that 9-6 overall mark hold very little weight because of who played whom.
This is the second time I've made this point in one of these "Pac-10 is better than the SEC" articles, and I've yet to hear anyone top this:
Here are the Final AP Polls since the start of the BCS system in the last ten years:
2007
Pac-10 (4): #3 USC, #16 Arizona State, #23 Oregon, #25 Oregon State
SEC (5): #1 LSU, #2 Georgia, #12 Tennessee, #13 Florida, #15 Auburn
2006
Pac-10 (3): #4 USC, #14 California, #21 Oregon State
SEC (6): #1 Florida, #3 LSU, #9 Auburn, #15 Arkansas, #23 Georgia, #25 Tennessee
2005
Pac-10 (4): #2 USC, #12 Oregon, #16 UCLA, #25 California
SEC (5): #6 LSU, #8 Alabama, #10 Georgia, #12 Florida, #14 Auburn
2004
Pac-10 (3): #1 USC, #9 California, #19 Arizona State
SEC (4): #2 Auburn, #7 Georgia, #13 Tennessee, #16 LSU
2003
Pac-10 (2): #1 USC, #9 Washington State
SEC (5): #2 LSU, #7 Georgia, #13 Ole Miss, #15 Tennessee, #24 Florida
2002
Pac-10 (2): #4 USC, #10 Washington State
SEC (3): #3 Georgia, #11 Alabama, #14 Auburn
2001
Pac-10 (4): #2 Oregon, #10 Washington State, #16 Stanford, #19 Washington
SEC (5): #3 Florida, #4 Tennessee, #7 LSU, #13 South Carolina, #22 Georgia
2000
Pac-10 (3): #3 Washington, #4 Oregon State, #7 Oregon
SEC (6): #10 Florida, #18 Auburn, #19 South Carolina, #20 Georgia, #22 LSU, #24 Miss. State
1999
Pac-10 (1): #19 Oregon
SEC (7): #8 Alabama, #9 Tennessee, #12 Florida, #13 Miss. State, #16 Georgia, #17 Arkansas, #22 Ole Miss
1998
Pac-10 (2): #4 Arizona, #8 UCLA
SEC (4): #1 Tennessee, #5 Florida, #14 Georgia, #16 Arkansas
Pac-10: 28 total teams ranked (28% of the conference)
SEC: 50 total teams ranked (42% of the conference)
The SEC has more schools ranked in the final poll every year.
The logic just doesn't work for me, on any level, on how the Pac-10 could be considered better, let alone heads above. It's just false.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
We already have enough bias in this debate without bringing in some subjective finall poll numbers. Have you heard of east coast bias? Ohh, sorry, probably not, you east coasters forget that the country keeps going past the central time zone. Final poll numbers only show the amount of bias their is. When you start with an absurd number of teams in the top 25, you are going to end that way because you all trade poll places. Your argument holds no weight here. Try hard facts, like wins. Not subjective ones, like poll results.
Edit Comment Cancel
Will Shelton 11 months ago
It's always biased if it goes against your argument. So you'd rather have the hard fact of Oregon vs. 2-10 Mississippi State over every single final - not preseason, final - AP Top 25 from the last decade as evidence? The polls are based on hard facts, like wins. I'd take the polls as subjective if we were talking about one team being ranked a couple spots ahead of another or something like that. Or if the polls were even close. But this evidence - which is the single highest standard by which college football teams are judged, where you are ranked - is overwhelming in the SEC's favor, every single year, for the last ten years. If you think that 9-6 record head-to-head record that leans on USC and poor SEC teams is a better indicator than these polls, there's no arguing with you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Hmm, so you are telling me that preseason polls have nothing to do with final season polls? IF you don't see the bias in the polling, you must be a fan of the SEC. 4 teams in the top 10 preseason? How do you not end up with more teams in the top 25 at the end of the year? Not to mention you have 12 teams! Keep trying. Fact is, I'm not even a pac-10 fan, I just like to see the SEC fans asanine excuses and reasoning for why they are head and shoulders above everyone else. Hey, they are the best conference, but not by as much as you, or the voters, would like to think. Much like the pac-10, you have a top team and a bunch of chasers. Until Auburn, Georgia or Tenessee does something (In this decade please) the SEC is just full of hypocrites. (yes i understand florida won one, but again, you have 12 teams, and they were throttled by michigan last year, definitely no the perennial contender like LSU or USC)
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
one more tidbit: talk about being selective, That year that Mississippi State went 2-10, Oregon was 8th in the pac-10. Is that not a comparable matchup that year? Sheesh... But please, keep going if it makes you feel better.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
the pac 10 leans on USC?? did you miss the part where Lisa points out 4 wins by LSU??
Edit Comment Cancel
Will Shelton 11 months ago
Right, that was poorly worded on my part. The head-to-head record is affected by LSU as well...I was trying to make the larger point of the whole conference leaning on USC, whereas the SEC has more upper-elite teams, which has been debated at other points on this post.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Taylor 11 months ago
First of all, I like how you used facts to back up your case. However, facts aren't always as they seem. first off, a 9-6 advantage in the decade isn't a huge gap. plus, two equal teams rarely played each other except for the USC Auburn games. Also, just because UT won the division doesn't mean they were the best team in that division. Plus, Cal was way better then than they were at the end of the year when they gave up after the OSU game. Hopefully you saw as much of Cal as I did and will agree with me. The year before Arkansas was trying to find a QB when they played USC. That team was much better at the end of the season than when they played. The starting QB in that game was a WR by the end of the year. Granted, Ark should have never given up 50 points. All in all, I think football is a game of match-ups. I think people are stupid for thinking that UGA will blow out ASU, but I still think UGA will win. Most of those close games last year were before they made their run. That means the SEC should be 8-9 after the year, making things much more respectable, esp. with 2 road games. Still, the only true way of finding out the better conference is having the teams line up 1-10 and play each other. The thing with the SEC is that there is no game off, while Stanford and Wazzu SHOULD be easy wins. I think both conferences are down this year, especially the Pac 10 with all they lost. The SEC is a year away from being unbelievable once the new coaches get their players and LSU, UT and Aub get experienced QBS. I think the Big 12 had a good chance of being the best conference this year. All this is coming from a huge SEC fan.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Scott-
I agree the Big 12 could be the strongest conference this year.
As far as ez wins against Wazzu and Stanford...well, so should Vandy and Ole Miss be ez wins for the SEC. Or Louisiana Monroe.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
USC-Arkansas, Cal @ Tenn UCLA and Alabama were all pretty comprable. as well as one of the Oregon wins they had an overall better record than Miss state bu only finished 8th in the Pac 10.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Scott, you sound like disgruntled duck fans. "Well, if this would have happen, and this guy didn't get hurt, and, and ,and...." FACTS is what the rest of the country goes by, unlike the SEC.
Edit Comment Cancel
Devils Advocate 11 months ago
SEC fans, state all the subjective facts you want. I prefer to go from point a to point b in a straight line. At the end of the day, the PAC still has a convincing lead over y'all.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Cartmell 11 months ago
I read about 70% of the comments before scrolling to the bottom, so if this has already been said forgive me.
First, full disclosure: I grew up in Berkeley, CA and reached football awareness during the Tom Holmoe years. Then, for college, I went to Vanderbilt in time for Bobby Johnson's first year. So, the point is - I know bad, cellar-dwelling football.
And that reminds me of the larger point. We are told the SEC's strength comes from its 'depth.' You can't take a week off in the SEC because, guess what, then you'll get beat by Mississippi State. Or whomever. So to discount the fact that a bad SEC team lost to an average or above-average Pac-10 team is to reject implicitly its central claim to superiority. A lower tier SEC team *ought* to be able to beat a Pac-10 (or Big 10, or Big 12, or Big East) team, that is if what we are taught to believe is true.
Now, let me back up a bit. The SEC is #1 in fan passion if not conference strength, though I believe it takes the cake there too. Its bowl and championship record is remarkable, but the full story across the whole conference shows just an 84-82 non-conference record against BCS schools. A .506 win percentage describes the SEC quite well. Better than the rest, but only just.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Great post!! SEC makes claims of their depth but then disregards this depth when other conferences tout those wins. Which is it?
Edit Comment Cancel
Devils Advocate 11 months ago
State all the subjective "facts" you want SEC fans. The quickest way from point a to point b is a straight line(ie head to head record). The PAC, not just SC, has a convincing lead over y'all.
Edit Comment Cancel
tre mcneezy 11 months ago
"Tennessee has made huge gains in my eyes...they are scheduling home-and-home games with BCS teams. "
Tennessee has been scheduling premier home n home for years!
Edit Comment Cancel
Be Quiet 11 months ago
hehe, i like how players in the NFL is supposed to definitive....does that mean Ohio State is better than any SEC program bc of the number of NFL players?
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Taylor 11 months ago
I guess we will agree to disagree, but I think we can agree on one thing: The bowls need to get an SEC vs Pac 10 match-up! I am tired of watching the SEC and the Little 10 go at it in 3 bowl games!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Amen Scoot...we need more bowl tie-ins with the Pac and SEC.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
I think everyone can agree on that. That way we all have more gas to fuel the fire!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Evan Wiley 11 months ago
The SEC champ was only such because UGA had the worst game in recent memory against them. Uninspired play and just general sucking all around
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
YOWWW!!!!
hey, lisa, think you struck a nerve?!?!?! 63 comments in less than a day!?!?!?
"vandy, ole miss, la-monroe"..snicker, snicker...you are a funny girl!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Rob-
Thanks! I aim to please! Hugs!
Edit Comment Cancel
Al Michaels 11 months ago
Let's not forget that J. Russell's pass on 4th and 10 to beat ASU was dropped, yet called a touch down. Also, do not forget that the place kicker for OSU missed 2 extra points in their loss to LSU. Just saying..........the SEC is way over hyped. You would be better off sticking with the Big 10.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
let's throw a little more fuel on the fire.
just left yahoo's preseaon rankings. the SEC has 4 teams in the top 10: georgia, florida, auburn & LSU.
the Pac 10 has ONE: usc.
the next Pac 10 entry is Az-State at #16.
another nugget on the SEC side of the scale.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Yeah, another subjective, non-factual nugget. Show me wins and losses and not the overall bias of the country. That is most people's point: The SEC is overrated and it shows in the polls. To tout the polls as evidence of your strength is just backwards.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Rob-
And we all know how good those preseason polls are. If ASU beats Georgia, watch what happens to the polls. I never got why they put 4 SEC teams all clumped together...Fla plays Georgia and LSU, so one team will lose, LSU plays Auburn, Florida and Georgia, Georgia plays LSU, Florida and Auburn, etc...
Can someone please tell me how all those teams will finish in the top ten? It's logistically almost impossible, some of them will have two losses and a big 12 team with one loss will be ranked higher.
The only thing I can come up with is that the poll does not reflect how they think the teams will end up, but rather only how they should be ranked preseason.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
I would like to think the preseason polls are guessing which teams are the best, not guessing what the polls will look like at the end of the season. the voters are guessing that georgia, florida, auburn & LSU are 4 of the best 10 teams in the nation. and for the sake of this argument, the pac 10 has one team in the top 15!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick The Only 11 months ago
I still think that if every SEC team played every Pac 10 team, the SEC would lead. The sample size and the lack of all of the teams in the conference playing each other make these stats misleading.
For example, two of the SEC's strongest teams (Florida and Georgia) are not represented at all. Yet all of the Pac-10's teams strongest teams are represented (USC, UCLA, Cal, Oregon).
Also if you take out USC's early season blow-outs of Arkansas, the SEC has a huge margin of victory advantage.
The only way to truly settle the issue would be to have all of the teams play each other.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
really those are the Pac 10's strongest teams?? I guess Arizona State didnt just win a share of the conference title or Oregon State have 10 and 9 win seasons.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
I love the SEC and their "Facts".
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-1-4/NFL-QBs--SEC-vs--Pac-10.html
Edit Comment Cancel
m hast 11 months ago
I love this! someone shows the sec what the facts are...too bad they still will try to ignore it. it should also be said most people claim if USC played in a tough conference that they would not be as good as they have been. With the exception of the Rose Bowl against Texas, Pac-10 teams are the only ones to beat USC since early 2002. Since then they have beaten several SEC teams(Auburn twice, Arkansas twice,) and teams from every other big conference except the Big East because they have not played a team from that conference. Great Article!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
M-
True dat, only K-State got USC as a non-conf win. USC loses to the conference foes.
Edit Comment Cancel
Diablo del Sol . 11 months ago
LSU...great team that we (ASU) let off the hook when we had them on the ropes. jaMarcus Russell pulled some crazy sh!& in the waning moments and hit Doucet with an unbelievable (some say no reception- out of bounds) play...But ask any player on that team if ASU was an "also ran" Pac-10 opponent and they will tell you they were lucky to leave SunDevil stadium with a W...Oh, and because Katrina forced the game away from Baton Rouge, LSU decided they did NOT want to play the Devils the following year. Hmm, but ASU is an also ran aren't they? Why not take a W from a Pac-10 team?
Russell, Addai, Doucet, Landry....you can go down the line on the roster. A GREAT team, with GREAT players, many of whom were high draft picks. ASU had a mediocre season that year also...so don't tell me it is USC and the 9 dwarves.
Edit Comment Cancel
James Doker 11 months ago
Ugh... Arguments like these are just so grating and frustrating to read.
Even though debate and controversy are what make college football great, it's still annoying to see that people can't hang up the conference debate once and for all. It's a pointless and unwinnable argument. There is a flaw in any way that people compare conferences, so the debate is entirely futile.
I think the SEC is the best conference out there, but that doesn't mean I think that Ole Miss is necessarily better than Washington State. I know you feel the same way Lisa. It's too bad most people can't be level-headed about the conference strength debate.
On the bright side, Lisa: you got an article with tons of reads and comments.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Name 11 months ago
Everyone makes a big deal about ASU's offensive line without really looking at the reasons for all of the sacks last year.
1.) They had a new coach and were asked to unlearn 4 years of Koetter's system- Confusion played a large part in it. Additionally, the offensive packages were limited and timing wasn't where it should be in the future with pass delivery. A huge factor was that Carpenter, as good as he was, held the ball far too long sometimes.
2.) Most of them had multiple major injuries over the course of their careers and were not mobile enough anymore. Brandon Rodd was better as a freshman than as a senior. The new players, while still large, are considered easily more athletic and limber than their predecessors.
One could expect timing issues to be worked out with players one year more indoctrinated into Team Erickson's system and less blown assignments, even with the relative "lack of experience" in the starters. Experience didn't do them much good last year.
As for Georgia, they had a nice record, but they aren't without their flaws. Stafford, so far, has proven that he cannot win a game on his own. The more he has the ball, the worse Georgia does. His receivers are pedestrian. The offensive line is young and will be up against a group of very good outside pass rushers. The Dawgs, against a good team, could very likely be forced to be one dimensional on offense. That doesn't work against good teams and, ASU really only lost two players of major note on the depth chart of their entire front 7. And, to boot, they were pretty strong against the run to begin with.
The win by 40 stuff is insane. They might not win at all. ASU has a more balanced offense, is at home and has an underrated if a bit undersized defense.
Edit Comment Cancel
Efrem Owens 11 months ago
WOW!!! AWESOME smack down, Lisa.
Edit Comment Cancel
john brewer 11 months ago
lisa you answered your first paragraph questions with your first paragraph last sentence.
but i won't tell CMR, you are cute and you still have a chance with him.
main thing is get your allegiance headed in one direction.
Edit Comment Cancel
wes 11 months ago
Alabama,Auburn,Arkansas,florida,Georgia,Kentucky,lsu,ol Miss,Mississippi state,South Carolina,Tennessee,Vanderbilt
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford,UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State.
Ok throw out Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and match them up from worst to first considering from 2000 to 2008. Based on overall winning percentage during this time.
ole Miss .473 vs Stanford .373
Kentucky .382 vs Arizona .358
Alabama .535 vs Washington .458
South Carolina .562 vs Califonia .551
Arkansas .580 vs UCLA .565
Tennesse .696 vs Arizona Stat .565
Georgia .776 vs Washington State .568
Auburn .735 vs Oregon State .636 1 undefeated season vs 0
Florida .725 vs oregon .676 1 bcs titles vs 1
LSU .788 vs USC .794 2 bcs titles vs 1
Now this year Georgia, considered the class of the sec plays florida, tennesse, south carolina in division and LSU and Auburn.
USC plays UCLA, Arizona State, Washington State, Oregon State, Oregon
Which is the easier schedule, seriously.
ws
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
HAHAHA More of the SEC "facts". Actually, the pac-10 plays in a round robin, meaning they play EVERY team in the pac-10, unlike any other conference in the land. This is their reasoning for not needing a championship game, because they play it out on the field, against every conference opponent. That way, there is no need for a conference championship, because it is decided in the regular season. PLEASE SEC FANS, get your facts straight before trying to sound intelligent. It only makes it easier on the rest of us.
Edit Comment Cancel
wes 11 months ago
Alabama,Auburn,Arkansas,florida,Georgia,Kentucky,lsu,ol Miss,Mississippi state,South Carolina,Tennessee,Vanderbilt
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford,UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State.
Ok throw out Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and match them up from worst to first considering from 2000 to 2008. Based on overall winning percentage during this time.
ole Miss .473 vs Stanford .373
Kentucky .382 vs Arizona .358
Alabama .535 vs Washington .458
South Carolina .562 vs Califonia .551
Arkansas .580 vs UCLA .565
Tennesse .696 vs Arizona Stat .565
Georgia .776 vs Washington State .568
Auburn .735 vs Oregon State .636 1 undefeated season vs 0
Florida .725 vs oregon .676 1 bcs titles vs 1
LSU .788 vs USC .794 2 bcs titles vs 1
Now this year Georgia, considered the class of the sec plays florida, tennesse, south carolina in division and LSU and Auburn. USC plays UCLA, Arizona State, Washington State, Oregon State, Oregon Which is the easier schedule, seriously. ws
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Name 11 months ago
First of all, why eliminate the two worst SEC teams over that time period? You should eliminate the two most average.
Secondly, overall winning percentage in this situation means little. Look at non conference opponents and non conference records. It's pretty easy to go 4-0 against the Louisiana Hyphens, Directional Michigans and D-1AA teams in the area, go 500 in conference and call yourself a good team because you play in the SEC. It's a nice formula.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Smith 11 months ago
Wow...Arkansas, Mississippi State, and unprepared Alabama and Tennessee teams lost to some Pac-10 teams having good games. It's a shame the bottom feeders like Vanderbilt and Ole Miss didn't get a chance to play any Pac-10 teams and be a part of this argument. LSU pooped on their opponents for the most part as Florida didn't get a chance to chomp all over the competition and Georgia didn't even get a chance to knaw on some overrated Pac-10 bones.
Put any one of those teams in a rigurous schedule with 8 SEC games and see if they survive. They will be so worked up about going in front of over 100,000 fans at Neyland Stadium (UT), the intense noise and heat at the Swamp (UF), Tiger Stadium (LSU) at night, Sanford Stadium (UGA), and Jordan-Hare Stadium (Auburn) that they will probably overlook South Carolina, Alabama, and Kentucky and get beat on their own home field. Sprinkle that schedule with some injuries and bulletin board material, and the Pac-10 team will get a true taste of the best conference in college football.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nick Name 11 months ago
LSU beat horrible Arizona teams badly twice and were outplayed by ASU and OSU. They needed Serna to make his last name a catch phrase (ala Munsoned) to beat the Beavers and needed 2 blown blocking assignments on special teams and a 4th and a mile miracle that wasn't to beat ASU. "Poop on"? What are you talking about? They should have been 2-2, but the football gods were on their side those nights.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
Sigh...USC kicked Auburn's behind at Auburn, and laid 50 at Arky. Home field advantage is overrated when you play a superior team. Texas proved that against USC AT THE ROSE BOWL.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
More of the same from SEC fan. Try providing unbiased, FACTS. Its nice to hear about your "big" stadiums down south there and how you "think" a pac-10 team would do in conference, but here's the skinny: pac-10 9-6 over the SEC during the BCS era, no matter how you shake it out, no matter what spin or excuses you would like to trot out, the pac-10 has the better record against you during the bcs era, deal with it. Every conference is tough in-conference, that is why there is more pressure on conference games. to pretend that just because you beat up on each other makes you good is just asanine. Give me hard facts, not dillusional grandeur.
Edit Comment Cancel
e hoffp 11 months ago
The BCS era began in '98, with a Tenn NC. Just sayin.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Cartmell 11 months ago
Brian,
Put any one of the SEC teams in a rigorous schedule with 9 Pac-10 games and see if they survive. They will be so distracted by dodging the feces flung from tree-sitters in Berkeley (Cal), the prospect of glimpsing some B-List celebrity in the stands carrying Matt Leinart, er Mark Sanchez's child (USC), remembering to recycle their used paper Gatorade cups (UO), their concerns over the structural integrity of Husky stadium (UW), the possibility of a 6.0 magnitude earthquake (UCLA), or a Library they'd actually consider visiting (ASU), that they'll probably forget to study game film for Oregon St., WSU, Arizona, and Stanford and suffer defeats more ignominious than losing to Louisiana-Monroe. Wait, actually, nothing could be more embarrassing than that.
Also, I'm glad that you were able to employ verbs suggesting the manner of victory of various SEC teams. Questions: a) Is pooping really the most fearsome form of attack a Bayou Bengal can muster? b) South Carolina has yet to get in on the action; What sort of verb would you see them using? Screeching? Squawking? Clucking? Seriously - I'm all ears here.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
USC played and won at both Auburn and Arkansas. Oregon won at Miss State. UCLA won at Alabma.
going in front of 100000 fans?? did you miss the Oregon at Michigan game?? the Big House still has the largest capacity doesnt it??
beat at their own home?? Again USC at home with AU and Ark. Oregon home beat Miss St. UCLA beat Alabama. Cal beat Tenn. probably did get rattled at Tenn.
Edit Comment Cancel
e hoffp 11 months ago
If LSU is so scared to play out of conference teams, why are we going to Wash to open next year? Oh and the Arizona State game in 2005 was supposed to be at LSU. I guess the fact that ASU wanted the Tigers to go back the following year instead of coming to BR doesn't make since in a home and home format does it. I guess they really screwed up when the rescheduled the entire series. Oh and by the way, since I didn't work in the Ath Dept in college, I guess I can't tell you that USC did call us to play, but they refused a return trip to BR. How does your theory stack up now. And yes, the schedule this year is weak, but that is compounded by Colorado pulling out of a home & home. The app st game was supposed to be last year, but it was changed when ESPN requested we move our game against Miss St to opening weekend. I bet Michigan isn't happy we rescheduled that game. Good article though. Oh and these arguments are pointless, neither side will see the others point, but funny to read. Oh and there is no way that either conference is heads above the other. Maybe one is slightly better than the other. Geaux Tigers....
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
Since you DIDN"T work in the AD you CAN;t tell us....
what the heck are you talking about? I think its time for bed. All of your fact spinning has gotten you confused. Or else you were never able to write in the first place... either way....
Edit Comment Cancel
e hoffp 11 months ago
I was simply stating that I shouldn't talk about it. Also, I provided facts, all you are doing is slinging mud. Who can't write now?
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
did you really try to make a point out of the SEC and national champ scheduling a game with the Pac 10 last place team??
Edit Comment Cancel
e hoffp 11 months ago
The point is that LSU is not afraid to schedule a home and home series as was mentioned earlier.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
great maybe they should schedule Baylor, Duke, and Minnesota while they are at it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currin 11 months ago
The facts about how you can't not talk about not something because its not true but is? Yeah, those are good facts.
Edit Comment Cancel
e hoffp 11 months ago
Ok, so scratch that statement (since you don't believe it then there is no way it can be true). The rest is fact. What have you presented to prove anything else as non fact. Anyway, I refuse to argue who the better conference is. There is no way of proving this point unless you line up every team in the conferences and let them play. Of course you have to take out 2 SEC teams. Either take the middle 2 or the top 1 and bottom 1. Either way, you still get 10 extremely competitive games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
Lisa: when Green Bay won the first two super bowls, the pundits said those wins didn't prove the the NFL was better than the AFL, it proved Green Bay was better than everybody. your pac 10 9- SEC 6 since 2000 is kinda the same. usc accounts for 4 of those wins. doesn't necessarily mean the pac 10 is better than the SEC, it just adds creedence to how good usc has been.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 11 months ago
again LSU accounts for 4 SEC wins
Edit Comment Cancel
rod wood 11 months ago
Folks,
Like I've posted before to SEC fans:
Why is the SEC the only conference in any major sport where its teams routinely try to take credit for the success of another individual or team in their conference? I don't see it in pro baseball, pro basketball, world soccer, hockey or even pro football. Is it because certain teams in the SEC that were not historically successful need a way to bolster the strength of their football programs because they were unable to earn long term success on the field? Latching on to what other teams have accomplished is exactly what it comes off as as - trying to take credit for another player or team's hard work.
These conference debates are nothing more than a few teams trying to come up with an excuse as to why their teams are somehow deserving of praise and they do that by playing the conference card.
Any true athlete with any honor or any team that works hard together to accomplish their goals and does so would never stoop so low as to try and take credit for what another individual or team has accomplished. Bear Bryant and General Neyland were true gentleman who went out and earned their long term success. Those two men would never do anything as dishonorable as taking credit for another person's hard work. The fact that these conference debates does not appear anywhere else in any other major sport begs the question as to why it is only the SEC that engages in this type of behavior.
I'd like to hear from the SEC folks here and the other conference people about this topic I've presented.
Great article, Lisa. Very well written.
rodwood
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
I too share that same concern. Here's what I don't get. They claim the SEC has won 4 BCS trophies.
Wrong...the SEC has never won ANY championship. The SEC is a group of 12 teams. When one team wins the NC, that team wins it. When LSU won the championship, I was offended that fans were saying "another championship for the SEC."
Yeah, I'm sure Vandy and Ole Miss earned that trophy. Same with South Carolina and Arkansas. The only team that earned that trophy was LSU. There are no championships for conferences. Period.
Personally, I think they banded together after the Auburn snuff. It's disrespectful of the team who earned it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian B 11 months ago
I can answer this as a Pac-10 fan (and someone who actually likes every Pac-10 team, having lived in every Pac-10 state during childhood, including northern AND southern California); it goes along with the Arabic proverb that goes something like "my brother and me against my cousin, my cousin and me against a stranger".
I'm mostly an Arizona State fan, but if the Pac-10 represents itself well against everyone else, then that makes Arizona State look better. So why wouldn't I root for my cousins in the Pac-10 against anyone but me and my brother? Why would I not celebrate their accomplishments? They're extended family, but they're family, and I can at least have a little bit of pride that the best in the country comes from my family, even if it's a distant cousin.
I think that the SEC has this in addition to a regional self-defense thing going on. The rest of the country CONSTANTLY insults the South as rednecks, as stupider than the rest of the country, as racist, as inbreeders...well, that's going to make them want to at LEAST see the title in the South, because they do take more pride in their football than any other conference or region than anywhere in the country. It's understandable and I love their energy...but the Pac-10 is better :)
And of course it looks like USC is dominating the Pac-10 and no one is as good as them...but that's because USC is pretty much the best team in the country year in and year out. If they and tOSU switched conferences, USC would be 6 time defending champions (ok, maybe they still lose to Texas, but I think if they played Texas 100 times that year, Texas would win maybe 8 or 9 of them)
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
rod: if you don't see it in baseball, you are not looking. the home field advantage in the world series is based on which league wins the all-star game.
Edit Comment Cancel