Originally posted by pantstickle:Originally posted by nipplehead:Originally posted by pantstickle:Originally posted by dirtysouthniner:Originally posted by nipplehead:
I don't know why people think USC wouldn't be good in other conferences...the Trojans kick the s**t out of every nonconference opponent except Texas in 2005. From what I can see, the only teams in the country that can beat SC is the Pac-10.
I live in SEC country and I can tell you that the PAC 10 is always the most underrated conference while the SEC is alway overrated. When USC loses to an unranked Pac 10 team it is considered a big upset. When a top SEC team loses to an unranked SEC team, the talk goes "Well, its the SEC. Any team can win on any given day."
Probably because the SEC keeps winning the national championship. That might have something to do with it.
That has nothing to do with the strength of the conference, and you know that. That has to do with the SEC having a couple beastly elite teams. Having two great teams does not automatically mean the other 10 teams in the conference are also good.
Sure it does. The PAC-10 has usc and some other teams. The SEC has Florida, Alabama, and LSU that are all legit teams. They also have Georgia and Auburn that are both talented enough to beat top teams if they play well enough. How many teams aside from usc has the PAC-10 sent to the national championship game? Homerism aside, do you really think the PAC-10 has as many elite teams as the SEC?
Not at all. I will readily admit the SEC is the best conference in the country. My point, however, is that when LSU loses to Kentucky, people say "well, it's the SEC, everyone is good." But when USC loses to UCLA, everyone says "UCLA sucks! The Pac-10 sucks!"
The point, however, is that just because Kentucky plays in the SEC doesn't automatically make them a good football team. The SEC has several elite teams, some good teams, and some pretty f**king awful teams. Dropping a game in the SEC doesn't necessarily mean it was because it was such tough competition.