• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Welcome Guest!
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

NCAA Football ver 2009-2010

LapDawg said:
An Ohio State fan trying to talk some shit about the Pac-10 and their "joke" teams? Yeah I think it's safe to say there are a few more jokers in the Little 10 than there is out west...

boy oh boy Axl you better hope your team doesn't embarrass themselves like Auburn did when they underestimated USC going into their house a few years back, because you know who will be right here laughing should the Buckeyes lose in their own backyard to a young USC team. ;)

And don't worry, should your boys win (which apparently they should from your perspective), I'll be here to say "good job! You did what you were supposed to do." :D
Click to expand...


while the Pac-10 is diluted with mediocrity, I wasn't trying to downplay the conference as a whole. I was just referring to USC always losing to a football program that, when it comes down to it, isn't any good. at least once every year.

OSU should win at home. while it's still going to be difficult to score plus 17 points on the Trojans, I think that their offense looks pretty vulnerable.

specially right now, during their quarterback controversy.
 
None of us knows where the talent is. SEC is unarguably a great conference, but anyone who thinks it's really on that higher of a level than the rest of the major conferences is biased and delusional.
 
no, of course not-- especially when you see so many great NFL talents come from absolutely nowheresville schools. SEC football is wonderful, regardless, and its made its own case more or less in recent years. I'd much rather be talking about a whole conference than talk about Ohio State nonstop, which is what it would be like if the Southerners seceded. ;)
 
Hehe I was just fucking around. I'm simply a bitter Big Ten fan:|
The media has been brainwashing people to believe that the Big Ten is a shit conference and it pisses me off lol.
 
yeah, its a total conspiracy between the analysts, statisticians, players, et cetera to make the Big ten look inadequate. ;)

(ok, I promise to lay off)
 
axl blaze said:
while the Pac-10 is diluted with mediocrity, I wasn't trying to downplay the conference as a whole. I was just referring to USC always losing to a football program that, when it comes down to it, isn't any good. at least once every year.
Click to expand...

The hilarity of the above comment is just too much. To hear you say the Pac-10 is "diluted with mediocrity" just lets me know you aren't as well-versed in your knowledge of college football as I thought, which disappoints me greatly. ;)
 
eastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbiaseastcoastbias.

the 5-0 bowl record is compelling, but the opponents they played leave something to be desired, no?
 
^They were all from major conferences aside from BYU. The Cougars were an excellent team last season however, being a top 25 team for pretty much the whole season.

It's more compelling that the Pac-10 has maintained a nice winning record over the SEC since the BCS started...but I don't want to have to remind you all each season about that. :D

Here are some other tidbits that an SC fan posted on another board. Take them however you wish. :)

Note - all rankings based at end of year AP rankings. "Better" means at least .500 in-conference. I only looked at OOC records, since it is the only way to measure a conference's strength. Information is from the 2000-2008 seasons.

Argument #1: The PAC-10 has outperformed the SEC in nearly every quantifiable category. Here is how each conference fared against OOC competition:

vs. Other BCS Conferences -
PAC-10: 85-73 or 54%
SEC: 91-83 or 52%

"Better" vs. "Better" Other BCS Conferences -
PAC-10: 49-31 or 61%
SEC: 61-49 or 55%

vs. Ranked Top 25 -
PAC-10: 38-65 or 37%
SEC: 36-58 or 38%

"Better" vs. Ranked Top 25 -
PAC-10: 33-35 or 49%
SEC: 34-38 or 47%

vs. Ranked Top 10 -
PAC-10: 12-26 or 32%
SEC: 7-30 or 19%

"Better" vs. Ranked Top 10 -
PAC-10: 12-17 or 41%
SEC: 7-21 or 25%

Head to Head Match-Up:
PAC-10 vs. SEC: 10-7 or 59%

"Better" vs. "Better" Head to Head Match-Up:
PAC-10 vs. SEC: 4-3 or 57%

In nearly every statistical category when looking at actual games played the PAC-10 outplays the SEC.

Argument #2: The SEC's bottom half is ridiculously bad. How bad? The bottom 6 SEC teams - Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina - have only 3 wins against ranked OOC opponents since the turn of the decade! Their winning % is barely over 10% (record is 3-26).

On the other hand, the PAC-10's bottom five teams - Arizona, Stanford, Washington, Washington St, and Arizona St - have 10 wins against ranked OOC opponents and their winning % is 22% (record is 10-35). This record is twice as good as their comparable SEC peers.

Argument #3: The SEC plays weak OOC games, allowing the teams in the conference to pad their w/l records, inflating rankings and allowing for more bowl eligible teams.

Here's a breakdown comparison between the SEC and PAC-10.

SEC (all scheduled OOC games):
# of games: 386
# of home games: 325 or 80% of total games
# of games played against FCS schools: 57 or 15% of total games
# of games played against teams ranked lower than 100 (Massey):134 or 35% of total games
# of games played against FCS or lower than 100: 191 or 50% of total games
# of games played against ranked teams: 51 or 13% of total games

PAC-10 (all scheduled OOC games):
# of games: 296
# of home games: 210 or 70% of total games
# of games played against FCS schools: 26 or 9% of total games
# of games played against teams ranked lower than 100 (Massey):56 or 19% of total games
# of games played against FCS or lower than 100: 82 or 28% of total games
# of games played against ranked teams: 76 or 26% of total games

This shows that the SEC schedules double the number of pansy teams in their OOC, and likely to schedule less than half of the ranked teams than their PAC-10 counterparts. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the scheduling philosophy between the two conferences. One is cowardly, the other mans up... you tell me which is which.

In short, the PAC-10 has outplayed the SEC in every conceivable measurement , yet USC continues to get shafted by not being able to play in the title game due to the perception of the "weak" PAC-10. It is truly an injustice.

Other statistical bits of information:

- The PAC-10 got reamed for going 2-6 against the MWC last year, but it's overall record against that conference is 43-22 or 66% since the turn of the decade. It is obvious that last year was an anomaly. Oh, BTW... what is the SEC's record during this time period? 8-6 or 57%... worse than the PAC-10's.
- How dominant is USC? USC has more OOC wins (8) against Top 10 teams than the entire SEC (7).
Click to expand...
 
I have Texas in the National Championship, but they have the daunting task of having Oklahoma in their on conference, the Big 12 South.
 
LapDawg said:
The hilarity of the above comment is just too much. To hear you say the Pac-10 is "diluted with mediocrity" just lets me know you aren't as well-versed in your knowledge of college football as I thought, which disappoints me greatly. ;)
Click to expand...

that was a low-blow, but nothing I am not used to around here ;)

the only threat the Pac-10 has to me and mine is USC. granted, they have a couple random good teams every other year (Oregon, and that other OSU) but they don't get much national spotlight because they aren't really shaking anything up.

if the Pac-10 had a consistent team save USC I would be the first person to give them props. but they haven't really had a contender against USC for the conference for as long as my swiss cheese memory can realize. and that's why they are diluted with mediocrity.
 
Why is a Big 10 fan trying to talk to a Pac-10 fan about consistency within a conference? It's absolutely baffling to me. ;)

The real low blow here axl is the ignorance you display with your weak shots against the Pac-10. You want consistency in the Pac-10? Well here's some consistency for you...it has been, historically speaking, the toughest conference to go undefeated in. Check the records. Of all the major conferences since its inception, the Pac-10 has, by far, the lowest number of undefeated league champions. Not until the recent rise of USC has there been a team that could claim a stranglehold on the top. It's simply not easy to run the table out west.

Here's some more consistency for you...the Pac-10 has the best league schedule setup of any major conference. 9 games against every league opponent every single year so there are no flaws in the system. No bullshit conference championship. No missing out on potentially big opponents in the conference because they're not scheduled.

And if you still want more consistency, Axl...then look at the stats I posted. Study. Think about them. Respond to them. Just because the Pac tends to have a shuffling order when it comes to the yearly standings does not make the league somehow lesser than teams from other leagues that just pad their early preseason rankings...something the Pac-10 does not typically get outside 2-3 teams per season. They don't typically soften up the non-conference schedule and they take chances...the kind of thing I like seeing from the conference I follow...the kind of thing other major conferences that try to tout themselves as the best don't necessarily do...;)
 
LapDawg said:
Why is a Big 10 fan trying to talk to a Pac-10 fan about consistency within a conference? It's absolutely baffling to me. ;)

And if you still want more consistency, Axl...then look at the stats I posted. Study. Think about them. Respond to them. Just because the Pac tends to have a shuffling order when it comes to the yearly standings does not make the league somehow lesser than teams from other leagues that just pad their early preseason rankings...something the Pac-10 does not typically get outside 2-3 teams per season. They don't typically soften up the non-conference schedule and they take chances...the kind of thing I like seeing from the conference I follow...the kind of thing other major conferences that try to tout themselves as the best don't necessarily do...;)
Click to expand...

as much as you are trying to disrespectfully sell the Pac-10, I am not buying, my long-time friend. within my recent memory the Pac-10 has only been USC, with perhaps Cal sneaking in every once in awhile and Oregon (many many "cool" points go to Oregon, due to everything from their schemes, to their facility, to their jerseys). it's not like I have anything against the Pac-10, I don't mind them and I root for Oregon, but save for USC they don't pose much of a threat.

those stats are nice and juicy, but when it comes down to it USC is the ultimate monkey and no other program quite compares. I don't understand why this is such a culture shock.

and yes, this is coming from a Big Ten fan. whatever happened to the media's beloved Big Ten? in 2003 Ohio State shocked Miami to win the National Championship and the rest of the Big Ten looked locked in their winning ways as both Penn State and Michigan had 9 plus winning seasons. Purdue always had a high octane offense and Iowa always represented Big Ten football well.

college football is cyclical, above all things. I believe the Big Ten will be fine. The conference is just struggling right now like the SEC did between Tennessee's title in 98 and LSU's in 03. Nothing more, nothing less. besides, whether stuggling or not, the up coming Big Ten/SEC matchups will still be great to watch. the fan passion of the SEC and the Big Ten is so similar it's scary.
 
axl blaze said:
as much as you are trying to disrespectfully sell the Pac-10, I am not buying, my long-time friend. within my recent memory the Pac-10 has only been USC, with perhaps Cal sneaking in every once in awhile and Oregon (many many "cool" points go to Oregon, due to everything from their schemes, to their facility, to their jerseys). it's not like I have anything against the Pac-10, I don't mind them and I root for Oregon, but save for USC they don't pose much of a threat.

those stats are nice and juicy, but when it comes down to it USC is the ultimate monkey and no other program quite compares. I don't understand why this is such a culture shock.
Click to expand...

What culture shock? Describing the rest of the Pac-10 as "diluted with mediocrity" just sends the most ignorant message from my point of view. Believe what you want to believe Axl, but I'll call you out for it any day of the week when a poor statement like that is made.

Has USC been carrying the torch? Clearly...pretty obvious of that...but the Pac is far from being a 1-team conference and you fail to recognize that.

And if you like Oregon because of their uniforms, I lose even more respect for you. ;) All that displays is they are Nike's lab rats.

It'd be safe to say the Big 10 hasn't posed a threat for quite some time. Ohio State certainly has been showing the best the Big-10 has to offer has paled in comparison to other top conferences the last several years, as well as other "top" teams in recent memory, such as Illinois and Penn State, all three of whom were embarrassed by the Trojans. Oh and let's not forget Michigan's ultimate embarrassment...it makes Stanford losing to San Jose State during Walt Harris' last season look like nothing. :D

Man, if OSU doesn't beat USC led a true-freshman QB that loves throwing INTs, that's going to be quite embarrassing Axl.
 
I really would like to argue LD's stats and assertions, but I can't fully get my head around a good enough point to bite on, take hold, and shake it to shreds....most of it stands up pretty well. I'd be interested to see if the someone would run the same stats against the Big10+1, or the Big12, or any other conference.

Random thought...Big10+1 keeps calling itself the Big10 and avoiding a two division playoff because they can't add another team and call themselves the Big12...'North'?...'v2.0?'....'Yankee Conference?' ... 'Snowballers?'.... I dunno. That, and they can't go with Big11 because a) they have so many trophies to re-plaque; b ) they would forever be just a little 'less' than the Big12; c ) the players can only count to 10...drop trou and count to 11...then give up; d) when you count a fighter 'out', you only count to 10 ;)


Back on topic, as I was trying to find some point of discussion on all this Pac-10 ignorance the non-left-coasters (myself included) seem to retain every year.... I started wondering, is it name recognition, and reputation? I mean, you hear "Big 10 (+1 :p )" and you think of the history, the big programs like MICH and PSU and OSU and the rivalries that got national coverage when you grew up and all that history....but then you add in the recent poor overall strength and that image gets diminished a bit, but there is still the name recognition for the conference, for the key programs. The SEC has been hot as of late, and a few teams stay up near the top, and a few keep their storied history (Alabamie, as they will remind you at every turn 8) ), but I don't think that other than Alabama there really is all that much 'history' if you reach beyond 20-25 yrs ago (80's a bit, certainly 90's with Spurrier getting a lot of air time with that attitude). Essentially, I'm seeing less history than the Big10+1, but more (recent) recognition...bolstering the perception of the conference.

Then, we could look at the BigEasy or the ACC a bit. BigWheezy used to ride on MIA and VT, and while MIA brings a medium amount of history to the table (80's), it is vanquished to the shit pile in recent years, while VT was an up and comer who couldn't sustain their prestige once they went to the ACC. Honestly, FSU had their time in the limelight (80's and early 90's) but they really have a medium history and very weak recognition at this point. I'm not hearing anyone trying to justify either of those conferences as any kind of force...for quite awhile.

Big 12? yeah, worth putting into my train of thought - you have history with Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, then some B+ teams when you think of history. There has been enough teams with 'recognition' in recent years (last 5-10 yrs) to bolster the conference image, so they keep the prestige image.

But Pac-10....the 'bias' claim... Based on what? The fact that before college football went nationally televised, there was no 'history' known to the right of Nevada on the map? That storied programs like UCLA and USC were only known up to that point for their bout's with ND or band members from Stanford? Yeah, I think Pac-10 fans will say they have history (and certainly as much as SEC claims they do, or Big East or ACC......though only the Pac10 fans will try to put it on par with Big10 or Big12), but to a large degree it isn't known until college football hit big time and the rest of the country got to actually watch the games (if we stayed up that late ;) ). The other half of my equation...the recognition part? That is where I think the Pac-10 is really suffering. The non-USC teams really only garner attention for a) beating USC; b ) getting cool uniforms (the image of lab rats running around in yellow and green made me grin); or c ) the off chance there is a matchup of two ranked teams and no other decent games worth watching at that hour. :\


Really, if I threw out the words "What do you think about MSU?" do you think Miss State? Michigan State? People in those conference have an immediate recognition of who they think you mean, but to America at large...those teams and others like them are 'participants' in conferences, and have a chance to get on TV when they play someone big. Other than USC, the rest of the Pac-10 remains viewed as 'participants', and their history (and that of the conference) remains important (known?) primarily to conference fans....but not to the rest of us. Those teams remain 'members' of that conference, without really ever being viewed as having a chance to win the conference (get into BCS) or have sustaining power.....random programs periodically challenge USC for a year or two, but overall....it just isn't seen as a strong conference.

People laugh at the bottom half of the SEC (Vandy, MSU, KY, etc) because they never really built a history or have sustainable power; same goes for IN, IL, NW in the Big10+1; same goes for TT (though they are fun to watch, they don't get taken seriously), CO, CSU, etc in the Big12. There are teams in any conference that just aren't given credit....both based on their program history and national recognition in recent (5-10) yrs. I think other than USC...the rest of the conference is in that 'participant' category. Same gets said for Big10+1 teams outside of OSU & PSU in recent years...and PSU is 'sorta' there :\



my .02, as I count down to this Thur nite ...can't freaking wait. We'll need to start up some sort of pool or weekly predictions :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top