NCAA 2009

[stjaba]

Why is that? It would make a lot more sense to just play every team in the other division once every two years.

Because of tradition. The Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-UT rivalries date far further back then even the SEC, which was founded in 1932. Auburn has played Georgia 112 times, Alabama has played Tennessee 91 times. Florida was paired with LSU(50+ meetings) even though Auburn was our historical rival(80+ meetings) since Auburn's rivalry with Georgia was even older. For context, Auburn and Alabama only started playing every year in the 40s. So, even though Auburn and Alabama are considered each other's biggest rivals, Florida has actually played Auburn more often than Alabama has. I think Florida still played Auburn every year up until around 2000, when the SEC changed the scheduling rules to the present form.

[Berkut]

That means, in any given year, on average UF's SEC schedule will usually only have a couple auto-victories. Unlike, say USC, which in this decade, had maybe 1 or 2 decent in-conference opponents the whole year.

OK, I think this discussion has flown into la-la land.

[sbr]

That means, in any given year, on average UF's SEC schedule will usually only have a couple auto-victories. Unlike, say USC, which in this decade, had maybe 1 or 2 decent in-conference opponents the whole year.

The only teams int he entire country who have beat USC in the last 7 years have either been in the Pac-10 conference or had Vince Young as QB,.

[Valmy]

Please see: Willingham, Ty
Please see: Weiss, Charlie

I don't know man the shit sandwich Willingham made of the Washington program pretty much shows he is a terrible coach and Notre Dame was right to fire his ass.  Not that Weiss is that great....

[Berkut]

That means, in any given year, on average UF's SEC schedule will usually only have a couple auto-victories. Unlike, say USC, which in this decade, had maybe 1 or 2 decent in-conference opponents the whole year.

The only teams int he entire country who have beat USC in the last 7 years have either been in the Pac-10 conference or had Vince Young as QB,.

I love the argument that the SEC is the best because they ahve Florida and Alabama, but that the Pac-10 sucks because the Pac-10 has USC.

[Valmy]

I love the argument that the SEC is the best because they ahve Florida and Alabama, but that the Pac-10 sucks because the Pac-10 has USC.

I don't get the Bama love anyway.  I am mean I will concede when they win a big game that they are a major power but they have done nothing yet.  I mean they failed to win their conference and got destroyed by Utah last year.  They lost to ULM a few years ago and have not won a conference title forever.

It almost seems their reputation is based on wins over Clemson and Virginia Tech, two programs I simply have no respect for.

Shouldn't we at least wait until Bama, you know, wins something of some significance before we annoint them to be the equal of Florida and USC?

[stjaba]

I love the argument that the SEC is the best because they ahve Florida and Alabama, but that the Pac-10 sucks because the Pac-10 has USC.

That's not my argument. My argument is that if the Pac-10 is strong top to bottom, as you claim, why is it that USC wins the league every year? I'm assuming we're not just talking about 2009, but the past few years here. And the SEC is not just UF and Alabama- Auburn, LSU, and Georgia have all been very good in the past few years.

[Berkut]

I love the argument that the SEC is the best because they ahve Florida and Alabama, but that the Pac-10 sucks because the Pac-10 has USC.

That's not my argument. My argument is that if the Pac-10 is strong top to bottom, as you claim, why is it that USC wins the league every year?

Because USC is insanely good, of course. Probably the #1 football program in the country over the last decade. The Pac-10 is good top to bottom (or rather top to 1 up from the bottom), but until this year it was ~7 very good programs and 1 outstanding program.

I'm assuming we're not just talking about 2009, but the past few years here. And the SEC is not just UF and Alabama- Auburn, LSU, and Georgia have all been very good in the past few years.

As has Oregon, Cal, OSU, and ASU at various times. Hell, WSU won the bloody conference less than ten years ago (how they have fallen...). Even Arizona has finally come around, but even at their worst, they played some very good teams and got some huge wins.

The Pac-10 is a conference where Arizona, who finished 6th or 7th two years ago, beat Oregon who was #2 in the country at the time. USC, as good as they are, loses a conference game almost every year.

Hence my comment to Seedy - drop Florida into the Pac-10 and make them play 9 games against Pac-10 foes, and they are not likely to go undefeated. They are almost certainly better than all those teams (excepting USC, when talking about year over year) but that doesn't mean they are going to win all those games. They will stumble at some point, and in the Pac-10 stumbling means a loss more often than not.

This year I think USC, Oregon, and Arizona could all beat Florida (not saying those teams win a majority fo games against Florida, just that they can play with them). I think Standford would be a tough out, and OSU as well.

[stjaba]

The only teams int he entire country who have beat USC in the last 7 years have either been in the Pac-10 conference or had Vince Young as QB,.

I think we can agree USC has had a good run, and has been one of the best teams this decade. But just because you have an elite team at the top doesn't mean the rest of the conference is stacked.

Besides, what difference does it make what conference you lose games to? Just because Stanford is in the Pac-10, doesn't make that USC loss to them 2 years ago any less embarassing. IIRC, USC was something like a 5 touchdown favorite.

The fact is, on average, year in and year out, the competition is tougher in the SEC than in the Pac-10. You can even measure that quantifiably: for example, the SEC produces the most NFL players.

[Valmy]

You can even measure that quantifiably: for example, the SEC produces the most NFL players.

Well...the SEC does have two more teams.

And really NFL players doesn't mean your team is any good.  Texas A&M and Nebraska have produced about 80 NFL players between them this decade and have not had any appreciable success on the field to go along with that.

[Valmy]

Anyway here are the NFL draft picks per team this decade:

PAC-10
School Picks First-round picks Most recent first-round pick
Arizona 21 2 2008 (CB Antoine Cason)
Arizona State 33 5 2003 (OLB Terrell Suggs)
California 35 7 2009 (C Alex Mack)
Oregon 34 3 2008 (RB Jonathan Stewart)
Oregon State 28 2 2004 (RB Steven Jackson)
Stanford 30 1 2003 (OT Kwame Harris)
UCLA 25 2 2006 (TE Marcedes Lewis)
USC 61 15 2009 (QB Mark Sanchez**)
Washington 19 2 2004 (WR Reggie Williams)
Washington State 17 1 2003 (CB Marcus Trufant)
SEC
School Picks First-round picks Most recent first-round pick
Alabama 35 3 2009 (OT Andre Smith)
Arkansas 29 6 2008 (RB Darren McFadden**)
Auburn 36 6 2007 (OG Ben Grubbs)
Florida 50 9 2009 (WR Percy Harvin)
Georgia 55 11 2009 (QB Matt Stafford**)
Kentucky 14 1 2003 (DT Dewayne Robertson)
LSU 49 9 2009 (DE Tyson Jackson)
Mississippi 22 6 2009 (OT Michael Oher**)
Mississippi State 16 0 1996 (CB Walt Harris**)
South Carolina 28 4 2006 (CB Johnathan Joseph)
Tennessee 54 10 2009 (LB Robert Ayers)
Vanderbilt 12 2 2008 (OT Chris Williams)

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=938905

[Berkut]

I think we can agree USC has had a good run, and has been one of the best teams this decade. But just because you have an elite team at the top doesn't mean the rest of the conference is stacked.

I don't think anyone has made any such argument at all - in fact, the argument being made by YOU is that the SEC is "stacked" because it has good teams at the top. The argument made by me is that the Pac-10 is top to bottom as good as it gets, that the middle of the Pac-10 is excellent, and the fact that a team as good as USC cannot make it through the conference without a loss is evidence of that, and in fact Florida and Alabama would have the same problem if they played in the pac-10 and had to play 9 games against quality opponents, rather than loading up on OOC patsies, and playing fewer games against weaker teams.

The fac that an elite team cannot win out in the Pac-10 certainly says something about how hard it is to go undefeated in the conference. If that is not evidence that the conference teams are pretty good, what would be? Would you expect a conference that was really good top to bottom to evidence that by the best team beating the crap out of all the other teams every year? That is completely counter-intutitive.

The fact is, on average, year in and year out, the competition is tougher in the SEC than in the Pac-10. You can even measure that quantifiably: for example, the SEC produces the most NFL players.

That is simply not true, and the fact that your "measure" of toughness top to bottom is laughably number of NFL players produced makes your argument look rather ridiculous. Since when is THAT the measure of how good a conference as a whole is, rather than just another measure of how good the best teams are? You keep throwing out "evidence" that amounts to "Hey, our conference has a couple of really good teams!" which is not disputed.

[stjaba]

Because USC is insanely good, of course. Probably the #1 football program in the country over the last decade. The Pac-10 is good top to bottom (or rather top to 1 up from the bottom), but until this year it was ~7 very good programs and 1 outstanding program.

Agree that USC is probably the team of the decade. But the quality below them has been uneven. I know this is just one guy's opinion, but check out this article on teams of the decade  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12007461

Top 25:
1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Texas
4. Florida
5. LSU
6. Ohio State
7. Miami
8. Georgia
9. Virginia Tech
10. Utah
11. Boise State
12. FSU
13. Nebraska
14. Michigan
15. West Virginia
16. Tennessee
17. Oregon
18. Louisville
19. Auburn
20. TCU
21. Penn State
22. Boston College
23. Wisconsin
24. Oregon State
25. Kansas State

As you can see, the Pac-10 has only 1 consistent elite team(defined as top 10): USC, and 3 consistently good teams(defined as top 25) Whereas, the SEC has 3 teams in the top 10, and 5 in the top 25. This is the strong counter-argument about the Pac-10's depth.

Even Arizona has finally come around, but even at their worst, they played some very good teams and got some huge wins.

The Pac-10 is a conference where Arizona, who finished 6th or 7th two years ago, beat Oregon who was #2 in the country at the time. USC, as good as they are, loses a conference game almost every year.

1.  That's a bad example since Oregon lost Dennis Dixon to injury IIRC and wasn't the same number 2 ranked team.
2. Upsets happen in every conference every year. The Pac-10 is not unique.

Hence my comment to Seedy - drop Florida into the Pac-10 and make them play 9 games against Pac-10 foes, and they are not likely to go undefeated. They are almost certainly better than all those teams (excepting USC, when talking about year over year) but that doesn't mean they are going to win all those games. They will stumble at some point, and in the Pac-10 stumbling means a loss more often than not.

The top 3 teams in the SEC, if playing USC's schedule, would all have a strong chance of finishing undefeated, or at worst with one loss. No teams in the Pac-10(besides USC, and possibly Oregon in some years) could consistently say that. And that is proven in the fact USC wins every single year.

This year I think USC, Oregon, and Arizona could all beat Florida (not saying those teams win a majority fo games against Florida, just that they can play with them). I think Standford would be a tough out, and OSU as well.

Sure they would be tough games, but would the Pac-10 teams beat Florida. IMO, no.

Hell, WSU won the bloody conference less than ten years ago

They didn't win the title outright, they shared it with USC. Which BTW is one of the lamer aspects of the Pac-10-:sharing championships.

[Berkut]

The sharing thing is bogus - nobody cares if you "share" a title - the conference has one champion, and that champion goes to the Rose Bowl.

And what is awesome is that it is determined by a true round robin schedule, which is how it should be.

And the data says you are wrong - you said USC is the 'team of the decade", yet they cannot get throught hte Pac-10 undefeated - why do you think Florida could? Just because they are Florida - right?

SEC arrogance is amusing, and so unfounded on anything but ego. The numbers don't lie, and the one truly objective measure says the pac-10 is better, at leat this year.

Florida plays USCs schedule and they drop at least 1 game, and maybe more. They haven't proven they can win against quality opponents weak in and week out, and quite frankly, nobody can, for the most part.

Which is why the SEC has set it up so they don't even have to risk it.

[Berkut]

As you can see, the Pac-10 has only 1 consistent elite team(defined as top 10): USC, and 3 consistently good teams(defined as top 25)

That is because the pac-10 kicks the crap out of each other every year, nobody ends up undefeated or with one loss (excepting USC), so they aren't going to be ranked in the top-10 that often, unlike the SEC where they have massaged the system nicely and set themselves up to have plenty of teams with 1 or 0 losses by not playing each other and loading up against cupcakes instead.

Your article proves nothing - in fact, if my claim is true, that the Pac-10 is consistently tough top to bottom, that is exactly the result that you would expect to get. A lot of teams with good, but not great records. That is called parity.

And in fact, that is one of the reasons why people are starting to question the Pac-10 choice to stay with a round robin schedule, and the conference is considering bringing in a couple more teams, dividing up, and going with the patsy model that works so well to generate "top-10" teams that prove they are top ten by studiously avoiding playing anyone who might beat them.