I'm Back: Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football (Part Seven)

Erick England pointed out sarcastically that, “I guess the fact the LSU continues to schedule the PAC-10 for out-of-conference games (home and home with ASU, AU, and Washington, and OSU three years ago) is only more proof that the SEC does indeed schedule weak out-of-conference.”

I guess the fact that Arizona was 2-10 and 6-6 in 2003 and 2006, respectively. Oregon State was 7-5 in 2004 and LSU won in overtime. Arizona State was 7-5 in 2005 and LSU beat them 35-31. LSU plays Washington in 2009; Washington has gone 2-9, 5-7, and 4-9 the past three seasons.

There’s a reason that LSU only schedules certain Pac-10 teams: they are the bottom of the league.

My favorite friend Jordan Coleman said, “The Pac-10 has to schedule a couple good out of conference games because the conference games are pretty weak at best compared to the SEC. The SEC always has 5-7 teams ranked in the top 25 in conference so it all equals out.”

This is maybe the argument that makes me the most upset out of anything. As my main man Terence Moore at AJC.com puts it: “There are 12 SEC teams, and the only thing brutal about half of them (South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Kentucky and Vanderbilt) is the way that they’ve played in recent years.”

There are also arguments that an individual SEC team will never play all the top SEC schools in a single season due to the SEC’s 12-team format. For example, this year Mississippi State does not even have to play Florida or South Carolina.

SEC fans want to believe they play a tough in-conference schedule week in and week out, but the truth of the matter is there are weak teams in the conference. The other truth is that SEC teams do not even play all the other SEC teams, so they do not play as many “tough” games as SEC fans claim they do.

SEC fan Stephen Williams, who is apparently going to earn a “degree” from Union College (what are professor credentials there, a pre-school education?), said the following: “The Pac-10 has been a top-heavy conference riding the success of USC.

"Other than them, none of the other schools have consistently competed for a national title year in and year out, as opposed to Florida, Georgia, and LSU, who are always in the hunt for the national title.”

Stephen, Georgia is not a perennial national championship contender. Maybe in the last couple of years, but not always.

You named three SEC schools that have been high in the rankings the past couple of years (even though Georgia is questionable). Let me name you three Pac-10 schools: USC, Oregon, and California. USC is obvious.

Oregon finished the year at No. 2 in 2001. They would have won the national championship last year had Dennis Dixon not gotten injured. Oregon finished #10 in 2005. California was up to No. 4 in 2004, and No. 2 before their giant landslide last year. Case closed.

Beyond the top three, there have been arguments that the SEC is somehow a deeper conference than the Pac-10. With schools such as Auburn, South Carolina, and Tennessee, the SEC is rolling deep.

But not as deep as the Pac-10. Arizona State finished 9-3 last year and was ranked No. 6 at one point. Oregon State has finished with 9-4 and 10-4 records in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

Even when you look at the bottom, it is clear that the Pac-10 is better from top to bottom. Last place Stanford took down USC. Ole Miss had zero conference wins. That is not parity in the SEC, when your last-place school has zero conference wins.

On to Part 8.