***2009/10 USC Football Thread****

You guys can get all pissy, doesn't change the fact that pretty much every publication has the PAC10 as the worst or second worst BCS conference. Remove USC from that equation and it's easily the worst. They need a rival, like OU and UT, or the entire SEC, to be more than a one trick pony. Or at least a team that can crack the top ten. Ther Big12 has a different one every year, along with 2 top 5 teams every year. There is no comparison.

Originally posted by TX9R:
You guys can get all pissy, doesn't change the fact that pretty much every publication has the PAC10 as the worst or second worst BCS conference. Remove USC from that equation and it's easily the worst. They need a rival, like OU and UT, or the entire SEC, to be more than a one trick pony. Or at least a team that can crack the top ten. Ther Big12 has a different one every year, along with 2 top 5 teams every year. There is no comparison.

yes becuase publications and polls are a true measurement of conference strength

And every major publication rates the PAC as the worst or 2nd worst BCS conference?? Really?? You sure you aren't just reading Texas Football Monthly.

Look at Sagarin rankings, which are pretty well respected. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc09.htm

Pac-10 is #2. Not saying that that is true, but obviously the PAC is a good conference. And take USC out of the PAC would just mean all that great talent in LA would be on other PAC teams....

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

Originally posted by TX9R:
You guys can get all pissy, doesn't change the fact that pretty much every publication has the PAC10 as the worst or second worst BCS conference. Remove USC from that equation and it's easily the worst. They need a rival, like OU and UT, or the entire SEC, to be more than a one trick pony. Or at least a team that can crack the top ten. Ther Big12 has a different one every year, along with 2 top 5 teams every year. There is no comparison.

yes becuase publications and polls are a true measurement of conference strength

And every major publication rates the PAC as the worst or 2nd worst BCS conference?? Really?? You sure you aren't just reading Texas Football Monthly.

Look at Sagarin rankings, which are pretty well respected. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc09.htm

Pac-10 is #2. Not saying that that is true, but obviously the PAC is a good conference. And take USC out of the PAC would just mean all that great talent in LA would be on other PAC teams....

yes and then maybe the conference would be good. It isn't. The only people who think so are those who have a rooting interest. The rest of the country... not so much.

The fact of the matter is the Pac-10 consistently plays BY FAR the toughest OOC schedule in the entire country. This inevitably results in more losses than if they were to play Louisiana Tech, North Texas, etc.

The other thing is that because of the way the Pac schedules, each team plays all 9 other teams every year. There's no dodging the top teams. This results in an extra loss for half the conference. On the other hand, the Big 12 and the SEC don't play every team in their league, so they're free to schedule a patsy OOC team to beef up their W/L record.

As for being a one-trick pony - SI ranks 4 Pac-10 teams in their top 25. I haven't looked at other rankings beyond that, because I don't care about teams other than SC, but Oregon and Cal are considered top 15 teams this year. And it's not a one-time thing - had Dixon not gone down with a knee injury two years ago, Oregon would have won the BCS championship. They were unstoppable. I watched a lot of them and a lot of LSU that year, and LSU would have gotten blown out of the water.

Anyways, there's no real point in arguing. I've found that Big 12 and (especially) SEC fans are so territorial that they feel the need to not only praise their own conference but the need to constantly disparage the other conferences. Sad, really. No matter what we say, they won't change their minds. The Big 12 fans are better about it, probably because other than Texas they haven't won dick since 2000 or whenever it was that OU won. SEC fans are f**king insufferable.

A few points. As a big12 fan I have no problem admitting SEC is by far the best conference. The big 12 has been second for a while. I can admit that. SEC doesn't have to schedule great OOC conference games because almost every conf game is difficult. Pac10...not so much.

Originally posted by TX9R:
A few points. As a big12 fan I have no problem admitting SEC is by far the best conference. The big 12 has been second for a while. I can admit that. SEC doesn't have to schedule great OOC conference games because almost every conf game is difficult. Pac10...not so much.

I'm not sure I buy the "every game is difficult" in the SEC. Take last year as an example. There were two elite SEC teams (Florida and Alabama). Ole Miss and Georgie were good but hardly spectacular, and there was a number of awful teams - LSU, the other USC, Auburn, Tennessee, etc. I think the SEC benefits from (a) the OOC schedule puffing up their teams and (b) the strength of their elite teams (they have won 3 BCS titles in a row between two teams, but for some reason the SEC claims that it has won 3 BCS titles in a row - not the case. Florida have LSU have won 3 in a row, that's all.)

I'm not really arguing with you; if I ranked the conferences, it would be:

1. SEC
2. Big 12
3. Pac-10
4-6. Big 10, ACC, Big East in some order

But my point is that I think the myths surrounding how great the SEC is are exaggerated. It's the best conference in college football, but only barely.

Originally posted by nipplehead:

Originally posted by TX9R:
A few points. As a big12 fan I have no problem admitting SEC is by far the best conference. The big 12 has been second for a while. I can admit that. SEC doesn't have to schedule great OOC conference games because almost every conf game is difficult. Pac10...not so much.

I'm not sure I buy the "every game is difficult" in the SEC. Take last year as an example. There were two elite SEC teams (Florida and Alabama). Ole Miss and Georgie were good but hardly spectacular, and there was a number of awful teams - LSU, the other USC, Auburn, Tennessee, etc. I think the SEC benefits from (a) the OOC schedule puffing up their teams and (b) the strength of their elite teams (they have won 3 BCS titles in a row between two teams, but for some reason the SEC claims that it has won 3 BCS titles in a row - not the case. Florida have LSU have won 3 in a row, that's all.)

I'm not really arguing with you; if I ranked the conferences, it would be:

1. SEC
2. Big 12
3. Pac-10
4-6. Big 10, ACC, Big East in some order

But my point is that I think the myths surrounding how great the SEC is are exaggerated. It's the best conference in college football, but only barely.

You're talking one year, most would agree last year was a down year in the SEC and it was still the best conference. Take the last decade or so and you have most of the teams contending at one time or another, not just one or two of the same teams every year. That's what makes it so good. That's my knock on the pac10 and it's really a compliment to USC. I won't see the conference as any good until it has someone to consistently challenge USC.

Can't wait to see you guys Oct.3rd at Strawberry Canyon

Aaron Corp is a redshirt sophomore, right? If he wins the job this year will Barkley have a fair shot at winning it the next?

Cause damn, if Corp starts through the rest of his eligibility then Barkley's only got a year or two to run the offense and that seems a criminal waste of talent.

Originally posted by dobophile:
It cracks me up how . . . it seems like every season . . . USC knob-slobberers talk about how great the PAC-10 is whenever USC loses to Oregon State or Stanford.

You see, USC just lost to a great team, blah blah blah

Just like when florida lost to Miss last year.

Originally posted by dobophile:
It cracks me up how . . . it seems like every season . . . USC knob-slobberers talk about how great the PAC-10 is whenever USC loses to Oregon State or Stanford.

You see, USC just lost to a great team, blah blah blah

WTF are you talking about? No one in here has said the PAC-10 was great, all we have been saying is that it isn't the MAC.

TX was saying USC plays against MAC teams all season, and so we argued with him about that statement. Now we are "knob-slobbers talk[ing] about how great the PAC-10" is.

And if USC doesn't win the PAC, I guarantee you everyone in Texas will be saying the PAC sucks and now so does USC. I really don't get Texans hatred of the PAC and pretty much anything Californian.

And then you troll around in threads talking s**t about the PAC and calling us knob slobbers...

I hope Corp wins the starting job.

We went to the same high school.

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

Originally posted by dobophile:
It cracks me up how . . . it seems like every season . . . USC knob-slobberers talk about how great the PAC-10 is whenever USC loses to Oregon State or Stanford.

You see, USC just lost to a great team, blah blah blah

WTF are you talking about? No one in here has said the PAC-10 was great, all we have been saying is that it isn't the MAC.

TX was saying USC plays against MAC teams all season, and so we argued with him about that statement. Now we are "knob-slobbers talk[ing] about how great the PAC-10" is.

And if USC doesn't win the PAC, I guarantee you everyone in Texas will be saying the PAC sucks and now so does USC. I really don't get Texans hatred of the PAC and pretty much anything Californian.

And then you troll around in threads talking s**t about the PAC and calling us knob slobbers...

Wow, someone's sensitive.

Are you a USC fan? Because that's who I was talking about, separate from whatever discussion you were having with TX.

yeah, I'm a USC fan

And I'm not "sensitive", I'm defending the PAC-10 against idiots that act like the PAC-10 is some cake walk.

Originally posted by dman:
I hope Corp wins the starting job.

We went to the same high school.

It'd be unwise to start a true freshman. Corp will start.

Originally posted by nipplehead:
The fact of the matter is the Pac-10 consistently plays BY FAR the toughest OOC schedule in the entire country. This inevitably results in more losses than if they were to play Louisiana Tech, North Texas, etc.

The other thing is that because of the way the Pac schedules, each team plays all 9 other teams every year. There's no dodging the top teams. This results in an extra loss for half the conference. On the other hand, the Big 12 and the SEC don't play every team in their league, so they're free to schedule a patsy OOC team to beef up their W/L record.

As for being a one-trick pony - SI ranks 4 Pac-10 teams in their top 25. I haven't looked at other rankings beyond that, because I don't care about teams other than SC, but Oregon and Cal are considered top 15 teams this year. And it's not a one-time thing - had Dixon not gone down with a knee injury two years ago, Oregon would have won the BCS championship. They were unstoppable. I watched a lot of them and a lot of LSU that year, and LSU would have gotten blown out of the water.

Anyways, there's no real point in arguing. I've found that Big 12 and (especially) SEC fans are so territorial that they feel the need to not only praise their own conference but the need to constantly disparage the other conferences. Sad, really. No matter what we say, they won't change their minds. The Big 12 fans are better about it, probably because other than Texas they haven't won dick since 2000 or whenever it was that OU won. SEC fans are f**king insufferable.

The rest of us just feel that without USC, the PAC-10 is average. But yeah, this is coming from a Big 12/SEC fan.