O FORTUNA...

I would like to defend the Pac-10

But I can’t. The league just plain sucks this year.

 I think Stanford should be replaced with USC’s second string. They might not beat UCLA or Oregon, but they sure as hell could beat San Jose State.

“scantily clad catcher’s mitts”

Eloquence, thy name is Orson.

Ah, Carmina Burana the bane of my existence Junior year of high school. took roughly 4 months for the band to learn it. brings the house down though. oh and yes, I was a band dork in high school. which is why I couldn’t touch a female till college, when I quit playing.

Yeah, well apparently the internet didn’t go the extra mile… Its Carl Orff with a C…

Post-game quotes from a certain head coach of Illinois:

“Obviously, we stunk it up. We were probably as bad as we could be in every phase.”

“That team may be better than us but they’re not 33 points better. If I thought we were that bad a team I probably wouldn’t be here right now. … We’re much better than we played.”

It was the OSU Band playing it. I was one of them. It was awesome. Go Bucks!

brad, tell the director to keep it up, because it is completely badass. i saw you guys practicing it over by the RPAC, and i got pumped that you were gonna use it this year, too.

just thinking about hearing that while we give a beatdown to PSU at the Horseshoe gives me the goosebumps.

scantily clad catcher’s mitts.

that’s just way damn funny.

When did Boise State-Oregon State achieve ‘marquee game’ status? Once OSU lost, I suppose. But if that was a marquee game, so was Minnesota at Cal yesterday, but let’s not mention how that turned out because it doesn’t support our thesis.

And if BSU-OSU, was a marquee game, so was Oregon-Fresno St, no doubt. No mention of that either.

Everyone must be so pissed at FSU and Tennessee for their close calls, so that nobody can bash UCLA for beating Rice by 10.

The Pac-10 isn’t deep, but it has more than two good teams. Which is more than the Big East and Big 12 can say.

Dear Penn State Fans,

Sorry we charged you guys $600/ticket to attend your own coach’s wake but we’ve decided to make all of our MBA tailgater’s open bar.

Thanks for picking up the tab, and enjoy the long ride back to Happy Valley.

Sincerely,

The Poet Laureate of the MBA School

Wow… a breakdown of a Latin cantata and a joke about Amato’s sweet rack in the same post. I have truly found me a home. And during the XM broadcast of the FSU-Troy game I swear I heard Gene Deckerhoff say something to the effect of, “Fagg, covered up by Trojans reaches around the defender for the catch before taking it deep.”

I hope that taught Troy a lesson, that you just can’t sit on a lead and let FSU hang around like that.

Without any running game to speak of, the Seminoles’ offense isn’t even “three yards and a cloud of dust,” it’s “one yard and a chorus of boos.” They’re damn lucky the rest of the ACC appears to be populated by a bunch of Jerry’s Kids in pads and helmets.

I remember they played O Fortuna right after the Texas fumble. Fitting, as that was probably the biggest momentum shift in the game.

And I noticed you putting Rutgers in your Top 25 last week, no argument there, they looked good. But you could probably bump Illinois’ opponent up about 20 ranking spots every week and look like a genius. Such is the spectacular nature of [name redacted]’s suckitude.

If you kept watching the ND game you could have watched those wonderful Vonage commercials… over and over and over again…

Lets count known bad teams in the confrences, since it’s too early to really know who is good. By known bad I mean, we have on the field evidence of suckitude. A scare by a cupcake can get you on the list, but a loss to a good team won’t. I may not be familiar with every game that happened so far, feel free to suggest additions/subtractions.

Big East: Syracuse
ACC: Florida State, Miami, Duke, NC, NCState, Virginia
Pac 10: Stanford, Arizona, Oregon State, Washington
Big 10: Illinois, Minesota, Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa (without Drew Tate), Indiana
SEC: MSU, Arkansas, Vandy, Kentucky
Big 12: Colorado

so Big 10 has the most proportional suck, folowed by ACC and Pac 10, although i personally think Northwestern shouldn’t be taken into consideration for this year.

The ACC is horrible. There is no defense for how bad at least half the teams in the conference are.

You say Carmeena, I say Carmyna.
Let’s Carl the whole thing Orff.

Missed Wake on the ACC suck list.

Big 12 gets Kansas State (scare from Illinois State) and Kansas (scare from UL-Monroe). Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Baylor all on notice for loss to good mid-major or close win over marginal mid-major.

8 over Hawaii and 3 over Vandy put Bama on notice.

Scare from Florida International puts South Florida firmly on the suck list. (Surprisingly low suck proportion for the Big East as a whole so far.)

Man, the SEC has 4 teams in the top 10 and 5 in the top 13 of the latest AP Poll. That can’t happen very often, can it?

Of course, after the two SEC showdowns next weekend, a couple of teams will likely drop.

Dear Joe,

You’re a prime example of why so many people hate Notre Dame. It’s not enough to just win — you have to rub it in, too.

As an avid PSU fan, I was very disappointed to watch such an embarrassing loss on national TV, but it’s also a shame that ND fans like you can’t just be a gracious winner and bite your tongue.

Can’t wait to face you guys in State College next year. Revenge will be sweet indeed.

NDTom: You left out Ole Miss. They lost to Missouri by 27. And why no Clemson in your ACC list?

“The Pac-10 isn’t deep, but it has more than two good teams. Which is more than the Big East and Big 12 can say.”

Perhaps you could quantify what 3 (at least) teams in the Pac-10 are considered “good.”

Hard for me to believe Rutgers and Pitt wouldn’t fall into that very loose definition of “good” also.

Joe, Joe, Joe..

I agree that post-beatdown trash talk is bad form. None of us would be here if we weren’t passionate enough to really hurt when our team loses, whoever it may be.

Which kind of explains the significantly elevated vitriol level in the never cordial AU-UA rivalry these days.

Oh Orson, I so wanted to believe you were one of the rare objective writers. Apparently you take your “fair and balanced” approach from the hacks over at Fox “news”. Yeah, clearly the Pac10 sucks when the doormats of the conference get beat by the cream of the opposing conferences on their turf. I guess it matters not at all that nearly every Pac10 OOC game was played on the road. Good job picking and choosing the games that support your hypothesis. Next time maybe you should bother to watch the games your commenting on.

You have an interesting definition of “marquee”. Find me a single Pac10 fan that would consider ANY game involving OSU, UW, or AZ a marquee game.

Yep – Ole Miss is a suck. Missed Washington State too. Clemson on notice, not a clear suck yet. Miami unfair as a suck – no more than on notice.

Agreed with JC. On the basis of the field performance so far, there is no justification for the Big East bashing, with Rutgers and Pitt outperforming expectations so far.

W
Rutgers > UNC (Middle BE > Middle ACC)
Pittsburgh >> Virginia (Middle BE >> Middle ACC)
Louisville >> Kentucky (Top BE >> Bottom SEC)
Rutgers >> Illinois (Middle BE >> Bottom Big 10)

L
Iowa > Syracuse (Middle Big 10 > Bottom BE)
Wake > Syracuse (Bottom ACC > Bottom BE)

Appropriate devouring of cupcakes.

Oh Mike -

Maybe it’s because there is such a disproportionate amount of “anti-ND, they’re overrated, wait ‘til we kick their ass this Saturday and then they’ll be seen for the frauds they are” talk (such as on BWI) before the games that some ND fans feel the need for some measure of trash talking after. But, like you just proved with you’re “wait until next year revenge will be sweet” statement, guess that’s just going to keep on happening. Now, waiting for the Michigan fans to start in in 3…2…1…..

You guys forgot about Bama on the suck list…Vandy by 3 at home??? Just wait until they play a previously Bowl eligible team. Or an away game.

Lucky for shula, they have the weakest non-conference sched in the nation.

Joe,
Bad form – especially if your only degree from ND will be a graduate degree. Boo.

Let’s all face it. The SEC is the best conf (anyone denying that is not being honest with themselves or doesn’t know jack about college football….I am not an SEC fan by the way) and there is no clear cut 2nd place. 2nd used to be the ACC, not it is not as clear. There is no clear cut for last place anymore either. I don’t think the BE will be last place at the end of this year though.

Oh, socalirish,

Let me be clear: Notre Dame was certainly the better team on Saturday — you guys played extremely well. And most PSU fans I know didn’t view the Irish as frauds before the game. My only point was that no one likes a sore winner, and it sounds especially grating from an arrogant ND fan like Joe.

And c’mon, there’s nothing wrong with saying “we’ll get ’em next year” — Notre Dame fans recite that line as often as anyone else.

I apolgize, I should have more respect for the dead…or in Paterno’s case, the undead.

Ignatius Reilly would be proud of this post…

NorthCoastBias:

Here’s the pac-10 OOC slate:

AZ: v. BYU, @LSU, v. Stephen F. Austin
ASU: v. No. AZ, v. Nevada, @ CU
Cal: @Tenn, v. Minn, v. Portland St.
Ore: @Fresno, v. OU, v. Portland St.
Ore. St: v. Eastern Wash, @ Boise, v. Idaho, @ Hawaii
Stan: @SJSU, v. Navy, @ND
UCLA: v. Utah, v. Rice, @ND
USC: @Ark, v. NU, v. ND
UW: v. SJSU, @OU, v. Fresno
Wazzu: @Aub, v. Idaho, v. Baylor (Seattle)

Actually, to this point, the pac10 has played an even number of OOC games on the road as they have at home. So no…“I guess it matters not at all that nearly every Pac10 OOC game was played on the road.” Because that statement is not only slanted, it’s downright untrue.

And this “suck/don’t suck” debate is reminiscent of Anthony Clark’s old bit (before being banished to Boston Common & Yes Dear sitcom purgatory, his standup was actually pretty funny) about Oklahoma’s license plate slogans rejected in favor of “Oklahoma is OK”: “Oklahoma—we don’t suck that bad!”

Mike -

Point taken. See you next year in Happy Valley.

You’re kidding me, right? What kind of thin skin is this by Penn State fans? Joe makes an amusing crack about the Penn State game, even going so far as to use an incident that so many people liked to make fun of, and now its all in bad form? Since when was “good form” or “good taste” necessary for this site? There were three quick responses about how it wasn’t cool to mention the blow-out win. Nice…

Of course, now ND fans have to listen to a week’s worth of “Michigan is going to stomp ND into the ground…” etc. Then, if ND wins this Saturday, it’ll send UM plummeting in the polls, giving the same people who were saying UM would stomp ND the “argument” that “ND still hasn’t beaten anyone”.

Can I ask a question? Is it me, or did too many teams actually believe preseason hype? Also, it seems that a vast majority of teams are taking very little stock of the fact that they play 11 or 12 games a season. It happened with Tennessee and FSU (although, Jeff Bowden is apparently just playing arena ball on a college field). I mean, I live in Tampa and attend USF, and I can tell you from watching them, they have some very talented parts . . . and they completely lack any kind of presence in another squad (ie, offensive line, QB, RB). As for Pac-10 weakness, I think it’s a cultural issue inside of the Pac where Offense is king and recruiting defense is a secondary issue. I mean, USC runs a factory of recruiting, so it’s no surprise at all to me that somehow they maintain this mystique of invincibility because they put top tier talent on the field day in and day out. As for the rest of the Pac-10, it’s probably in a down swing year, and Boise was in full explosive mode under Dan Hawkins last year and was hard to stop, with the exception of a very talented Georgia defense. The SEC has always made it a priority to have offensive lines that are road-graders and defenses that stop small armies in their tracks. It’s a very, very fundamental way of playing the game. I’m not saying it’s better, it’s just different. As for Cal, Jeff Tedford runs an offense that shuts down half the field so that the QB can make quick, easy decisions (precisely how Akili Smith & Joey Harrington & Kyle Boller could all be world-beaters). Tennessee plays a brand of ball that moves quick and responds fast and has a d-line that penetrates easily. They didn’t match up well due to differences in play. Now against another offense-first team, in this case Minnesota, Cal rides a surge and blows away the competition. Oregon State (The Other OSU), in my understanding hasn’t been a superpower of late, and I’m not surprised that someone had a hard time keeping up with Boise. I think the entire issue of Pac-10 being terrible is overrated. In about three more weeks, it will be the time when people can actually look at what’s going on and say for sure what’s going on. I mean, Lee Corso essentially said that Colt McCoy isn’t going to be able to cut it in the big games. Jesus, it’s his first season as a starter, and I can’t remember if he is a true frosh or not, I mean, for all intents and purposes, he’s a kid and he’s playing a team that has a fantastic recruitment power on defense, and the offense in which he had control played into their hands. Ohio State came in with experienced players with something to prove. You know what happened last year? Some guy named Vince Young, who many people doubted going into the season, came in and announced to the world he was here and he was for real. This time, Troy Smith made it clear it’s his turn. I might add, by the way, the Mr Smith is quite articulate and seems to be every bit the communication major the team guide says he is. As for ND, I think that Charlie Weis is a remarkably intelligent coach who makes his players perform better by being prepared far better than others on game day, and he has an amazing knack for play-calling. His defense may not be the best, but most days it doesn’t need to be. Penn State is lost a bunch of people on the O-Line; when in the history of football has that ever worked for the benefit of a team (see the Arizona Cardinals or the Green Bay Packers or UF the year after Spurrier left). I can understand why they had a bad game; they weren’t getting the blocking they used to. Look at WVU, they have a team that is young and will be together for a long time and it’s going to build that team into something special. I think pundits are too quick to underestimate the Big East because of the Miami-BC-Va. Tech departures. I don’t mean to imply its better, because, again, it’s different. USF is no Miami, but neither was WVU until the last few years and Wanstache may actually have remembered how to pull his team’s collective head out of the sand and get them moving again. I think the Big East is respectable. The ACC is just having some growing pains in the Coaching ranks. I believe they have reached a critical mass with some coaches that are either in their positions because of Nepotism or age. I think it’s a matter of time before a coaching carousel begins and we see a whole new face on the division. FSU’s problems will not go away until the day Bobby Bowden retires. He knows that his sons are all doomed to be coaches who will KILL YOU with some kind of bone-headed game that will break your heart. Right now he’s protecting his son who is virtually unemployable with any other staff. As for when Bobby leaves his job as CEO of FSU . . . about one season after Joe Paterno dies/retires/implodes and Penn State finds a new coach. As for Chuck Amato . . . I got nothing. [NAME REDACTED] . . . He coached the Defense of the New Orleans Saints. To me, the hire never, ever made sense, except the Jeremy Foley needed a fall guy after Spurrier left so he could hire a new, good coach later (Meyer) and not have him be punished for not having the surname of Spurrier. I would not be surprised if the same pattern were to be followed at FSU and PSU when those two Legends of the Game retire. Those two jobs might seem like such great places to go until you think that you’d have the same problem as every single coach who has followed Bear Bryant, in that you’d have to top every positive memory that those men left behind. To wrap this up then: A. I ’ll believe in the demise of the Pac-10 in a few weeks and a few more Out-of-Conference Games and B. God save those poor kids in the ACC who are toiling under dead-men-walking and C. I think that Nebraska is going to get its clock cleaned and fully restored by USC next week and D. USF actually isn’t a good example of Big East football, they actually are really bad. I mean really, Pat Julmiste has been around since Moses was floating in a basket and has an amazing hang time on his rainbow passes of around twenty minutes for 30 yards. That and he has a Doug Johnson-like ability to hit an open defensive back with a frozen rope every two or three throws. It’s the only time he throws like a good quarterback should but he can’t get that whole our jersey & their jersey thing down.

I think I’m done here.

That is all.

5.0 Guy

What was all this talk about the Big 12 sucking it up? Looks like now the Big 10 is the suckiest conference now.

One fault in my argument: Colorado. I think they should be replaced by TCU. Pathetic how Montana State gets beat by DII Chadron State though.

One support of my argument: Northwestern loses to UNH. Joe Pa’s impending death shown on national tv. Illinois blanked by Rutgers.

Jesus Christ 5.0 I think I’ll just read “War and Peace”. Think that would take me slightly less time than reading your post.

I thought we have been through the debate concerning PAC 10 bashing?

DT- the discussion is about last weekends sorry PAC 10 showing not a discussion (again) about which conferences schedules the weakest OOC for the year. It was last weekend’s games that precipitated Orson’s comments.

Orson, or anybody else can’t claim the PAC 10, as a whole, sucks because the bottom teams from that conference lost ON THE ROAD vs. good teams from other conferences. I am an alum of Oregon State and I don’t consider their games ‘marquee’. Ridicules!

The football arrogance from SEC fans is as on par with the general arrogance wafting out of Northeast.

5.0—try using your enter key. It’s the key that says “enter.”

Ok so I had more than one peice of evidence in my support in how bad the Big 10 is. Can’t count tonight.

Sorry tzubear, but the staggering amount in the “L” column for Pac 10 teams so far this season is the only piece of information that needs to be referenced to in Orson’s conclusion that the Pac 10 sucks balls this year.

Is it me or is this going to be a veeery ineresting season?

Who cares? USC has done enough to shed the alleged east coast bias for a few years. Being 3 hours behind, the emphasis on offense and not as many alums or townies treating game day as religion is the difference. A few weeks of OOC games doesn’t make a definitive statement. The SEC, Big 10 and PAC-10 consistently send the most players to the NFL, which is the ultimate indicator of talent. At least the PAC hasn’t caved to adding teams, split the conference in half or added a money grab championship game that fucks up a season of work, the polls and bowl bids. Anybody think Oklahoma is looking forward to Autzen next Saturday?

I’m late, late, late to the party, as always, but dammit, I cannot miss an opportunity to quote liberally from one of my favorite writings, Machiavelli’s Tercets on Fortune:

“Not a thing in the world is eternal; Fortune wills it so and makes herself splendid by it, so that her power may be more clearly seen.”
Mr. Bowden, senior? Deity on line one…

“This unstable goddess and fickle deity often sets the undeserving on a throne to which the deserving never attain.”
Tommy Tuberville merely nods

“By as much as they are richer and more powerful, by so much more they show discourtesy; by so much more they are less grateful for her favors.”
Oh Marcus! Mr. Vick, there’s someone who needs to speak with you…

“So Fortune not that a man may remain on high carries him up, but that as he plunges down she may delight, and he as he falls may weep.”
The list of names is too long to recount…

/“Fortune plango vulnera” is even more somber

Ditto what tzubear said.

I should have been more clear. I meant that virtually every game that has been played so far that Orson would apparently consider marquee games were on the road (I would guess marquee means P10 vs BCS, but OSU v BSU does not fall into this):

AZ @LSU
Cal: @Tenn, v. Minn
Ore: @Fresno.
UCLA: v. Utah
Ore. St: @ Boise
USC: @Ark
UW: @OU, v. Fresno
Wazzu: @Aub

Is that picture a little clearer now? I just assumed we’d all think that any matchup betwen the top of one conference and the bottom of the other is meaningless for conference comparisons (unless of course the A team loses). Apparently that was a poor assumption

I don’t know why I’m bothering with this tired, pointless discussion though – no amount of evidence or logical argument will ever gain approval from the Pac10 hating sheep. You all believe what you want to believe and keep your heads in the sand when things don’t support your opinion.

We’ll see what happens when you guys come to our house.

Since the PAC-10 apologists make such a big deal of HF, I guess the only thing the conference has clearly established is their marquee team is much better than an SEC bottom feeder, and Oregon has enough trickeration and special teams play to be a solid player in the WAC race.

None of the other wins count*, as they were all at home, leaving us to wonder whether the Lumberjacks would have folded in the 4th quarter with the home crowd cheering them on.

It pains me to take away a big win from your trendy preseason conference champs over a team almost all observers agree is probably among the top ten in the Big Ten, as well as UCLA’s 2006 Bring Down The Whammy Tour whalloping of the 7th best team in Texas, but your own standards demand it.

Good luck with the ASU-Colorado game. Great chance to prove one of your top teams the equal of Montana State (expansion!), if not Chadron State.

Joe —

    I’m a ND grad and am also named Joe. Thanks to your comments, I’ll now post comments under another name.

Suggest you take the following class at ND MBA:
           Acting Like You’ve Been There Before
It’s one that most ND undergrads complete by their junior year.

Yeah, ND fans are the only group of fans with bad winners.

Good grief that’s rich.

I must have imagined all that bitching the last 11 months from the USC fans who claimed the only reason they didn’t blow ND off the field last year was the criminally-long, scientifically-engineered, ACL-destroying, waist-deep grass they were forced to play on.

“Sorry tzubear, but the staggering amount in the "L" column for Pac 10 teams so far this season is the only piece of information that needs to be referenced to in Orson’s conclusion that the Pac 10 sucks balls this year.” -Chuck

PAC 10 OOC Results through week 2:

Losses:
AZ @ LSU
UW @ OU
OSU @ Boise
Stanford @ SJSU
Cal @ Tenn
WSU @ Auburn

Wins:
Oregon @ Fresno St
Cal v. Minn
ASU v. Nevada
ASU v. NAU
Washington v. Idaho
UCLA v. Rice
UCLA v. Utah
OSU v. East Washington
USC @ Arkansas
Washington v. SJSU
Arizona v. BYU

Every Pac10 OOC loss was on the road
4 of the 6 losses were to BCS teams
1 of the 2 non-BCS losses was to the #10 Sagarin ranked team

Now compare to the losses by other BCS teams:

ACC:
UNC v. Rutgers
Duke v. Richmond – SHUTOUT at HOME vs 1-AA
UVA @ Pitt
GA Tech v. Notre Dame
NC St v. Akron
1 out of 5 on the road

Big 12:
CU @ Colorado St
CU v. Montana St. – AT HOME vs 1-AA
Texas v. tOSU
Baylor vs. TCU
1 out of 4 on the road

Big 10:
Illinois @ Rutgers
Northwestern v. New Hampshire – AT HOME vs. 1-AA
Penn St @ Notre Dame
Minn @ Cal
3 out of 4 on the road

SEC:
Vandy @ Michigan
Arkansas v. USC
Kentucky @ Louisville
Ole Miss @ Missouri
3 out of 4 on the road

Like I said, no matter what the actual evidence, you sheep will continue to believe the dogma the idiots on ESPN feed you.

ACC: 3 of 5 losses to BCS teams
Big12: 1 of 4 to BCS
Big10: 3 of 4 to BCS
SEC: 4 of 4 to BCS

Oh, someone had to bring up ASU. I’ll do my best to be unbiased.
The bad…

1) ASU can’t run block to save a life.
2) ASU first three opponents are a combined 0-6.
3) It IS a down year for the Pac-10- Cal isn’t as bad as you think, USC isn’t as good as you think.
4) Arizona is NOT a marquee team. They are also NOT on the rise, turning the corner, or closing the gap. Their record over the last three years is 2-9, 3-8, and 3-8.
5) ASU thumped Nevada 52-21, but the four-letter network won’t mention it since it was on FOX.

The good…
1) Nevada was 9-3 last year and won their conference championship.
2) Colorado WILL get thumped. 3-0, baby!
3) ASU has figured out how to play defense with the help of former Florida DC Bill MIller and transfer DE Tranell “Tree” Morant. The secondary is still a bit suspect but they won’t be challenged until week 6 against USC (not worried about Cal or CO’s passing “attack”)
4) Washington did waaaay better than I thought they would.
5) The conference race is wiiiide open. Go Devils!
 
The excuses…
1) NAU was a late add to the schedule since powerhouse NMSU backed out of the game over the summer.
2) Schedules are made way in advance; it’s no one’s fault that CO shat the floor this year.
3) ASU is no sissy when it comes to schedules, but they only do home and home contracts. Future home and homes include Wisconsin, LSU (again), Notre Dame, Illinois(probably after [name redacted] is fired) and Georgia.

Not sure what the point of all of this is, but I took the time to write it so you have to read it. Apologies.

Yeah, P10 fans are the only ones who make a big deal out of HF. You clearly pay attention anything ever said about any matchup in college football. I love when people outright admit that they know nothing about the sport they claim to be a fan of.

To those of us who take our college football in via television…the Thursday & Saturday nationally-televised primetime games and a Sat. afternoon regional ABC game are considered “marquee” games.

(Sorry…ESPN made me think that.)

So, you’re saying the Pac-10 is good? hmmm.

I know they did. At no point did I think you were actually able to form your own opinions.

nevermind the fact that “primetime” is a different span of time on the east coast as on the west coast or that virtually every BCS team game is on TV now

I am not commenting on the specific quality level of the Pac10 (which we still have very little info about given that its only week 2). I am demonstrating that they are AT LEAST as good as the other BCS conferences (except maybe the SEC) and that the blatant Pac10 bashing is all bias and no reality

It seems to me that the Pac-10 bashers are mostly focusing on Cal. Yeah they got crushed by Tenn, but just because they turned out to be way less then they were hyped as in the pre-season. Considering that Oregon and UCLA both finished ahead of Cal last year, I didn’t quite see the extreme love sent their way.

There are still a number of teams that could exceed expectations, Oregon, ASU, or UCLA could go on a tear.
 
 I’m interested to see what happens ithe the Oregon-Oklahoma game, that would be a chance to regain some pride for the conference as a whole.

I’ll also be interested to see how Arkansas does in the SEC this year. Last year they got one of the worst beatdowns I’ve ever seen on a football field in LA, but they played some close games with the power teams of the SEC. That improvement was why this year’s USC-AK game was supposed to be different. And we saw how that turned out.

NorthCoastBias:
Hearing of my inability to form my own opinions and other thoughts concerning “the dogma the idiots on ESPN feed you” are all pretty choice words coming from a pac10 apologist, considering that the network force-fed everyone for several months how SC was the greatest team of all-time (to take the field against Texas.) In my opinion, it’s quite apparent that your suggestion that anyone here gets their college football information solely from disneyco, is a pretty ridiculous one.

Mine was more of a jab at the way in which Orson can be found to agree with the worldwide leader on something (in this case, the definition of “marquee games”.)

But to complain about not getting highlights aired because they’re on FOX and the way that espn is generally responsible for the conference getting no respect is to basically concede that they run the system that supposedly gives you guys the shaft. To not likewise concede that the system they run should therefore dictate which games are the “marquee” matchups of the week defies the very “logical arguments” you mentioned. The pac10 doesn’t ever get enough love from the network responsible for framing public perception…but when the pac10 appears on the network (like last weekend, in three prominent programming slots) they’re somehow still not to be considered a part of the show. Which is it?

Oh, and if you haven’t figured out that the start times of nationally-televised “primetime” sporting events are dictated by the east coast, you must not have been following sports for the last 40 years or so.

Doesn’t matter to me if Georgia never wins another game… but they look BIG, and seem to always be standing over some opposing player lying on the ground.

NorthCoast:
Everyone knows HF can make a difference in close games. However, to rely on “but they were on the road” as a defense of the PAC-10’s season to date is intellectually dishonest.

The five losses to respectable opponents came by an average of 26 points. No amount of homecooking will negate deficits of that size. The loss at San Jose State was as close as you can get, so Stanford’s probably better on a neutral field. I say probably, because judging by SJSU’s attendance numbers, a game at their place probably is a neutral field.

The three point win over BYU may turn out to be a good one, but it was close enough to suggest the results could have been different on a neutral field. Washington only beat SJSU by six at home, which puts the outcome in doubt if the home sides were reversed.

If you want to give the road team 27 points in each PAC-10 game, you can reverse four of your losses with one caveat: that would’ve probably just made Tennessee mad. To all us biased, dirt eatin’ SEC fans, it looked like they could’ve named the score. Adding 27 to Cal’s side of the ledger would’ve probably just inspired the Vols to score more.

The 27 point swing also results in conference losses to Minnesota, Rice, Northern Arizona, Utah, BYU, and San Jose State.

If you want to continue the charade of pretending any of the PAC-10’s losses save Stanford-San Jose State would have turned out differently had the home sides been reversed, that’s your business. Self delusion is a common coping mechanism, and I don’t want to interfere.

Don’t expect rational fans to buy it, and don’t condescend to those who won’t fall for your red herring.

DT-

I believe Arizona vs. LSU was on after noon on the west coast, so time is not the issue. This game was not a ‘marquee’ game for PAC 10 fans because of content, not time. If LSU fans think thier game vs. zona was ‘marquee’, then they are diluded. By that rational USC vs. the Arkensas was ‘marquee’, which it wasnt.

All good points, Tzubear. Check our blogpoll for clarifications and corrections.

LOUD NOISES!!!

THE POINT IS THAT THE ONUS IS NOT ON ME TO PROVE THAT THE PAC10 IS SO GREAT, IT IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE OTHER BCS CONFERENCES, WHICH YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE, HAVE NOT DONE.

Not a single poster in this thread made legitimate arguments to justify their claim the the Pac is much worse than the other conferences. The only point I’ve seen made is that they have a “staggering amount in the ‘L’ column”. As far as I know, 1 or 2 additional losses is not staggering. People state that the Pac10 sucks as a matter of fact, as self-evident, when it is clearly anything but.

Your point about Fox vs ESPN is exactly correct. I do concede that DisneyCo runs the show and that is exactly why there is bias. You bringing this up tells me that you do not bother to examine the true quality of teams, but simply take whatever image is presented to you on TV . This is why I say that you do not form your own opinions. I do not, however, concede that they should have the right to arbitrarily determine which conferences are good and which are bad. There is SUPPOSED to be equitable treatement and an effort to objectively measure the true quality of teams. There is not. We are not discussing who is “part of the show”. We are discussing who is good and who is not. “Marquee” is an irrelevant term. What is important is matchups between quality opponents. Just because a game is on national TV during primetime does not close the gap between the qualities of the two teams. I agree that it will have a greater effect on general opinions, but the so-called “experts”, that determine the polls and the dictating opinions, should know better. The fact that you support this effect says to me that you agree with the existence of bias and you like it that way. If this is the case (which I think it is) then we are not disagreeing, you are simply justifying the bias, putting you squarely inside of the ESPN herd. I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but don’t be surprised that there is so much outrage on the west coast. Obviously, opinion dictates the rankings of teams and there is nothing really to be done about that. However, our teams (besides SC) do not start out on a level playing field and ALWAYS must prove that we are every bit as good as any other BCS conference.

As for USC, the reason they get such high respect is that they have proved so far beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are one of the best teams in the country, that it would be laughable to not agree. They are part of the true elite in college football that will always get respect in the long term. The problem is the treatment the rest of the conference gets.

You’re practically oppressed, NCB.

I was not using HF to justify individual losses. I was using it show that when you look at the overall results of OOC play, there is bound to be an above average number of losses when more teams from a particular conference are playing on the road.

blah blah blah. Way to cop out of the discussion that you initiated Orson. If you are bothering to discuss these things, then at least be open to the fact that people care about what they say.

It is the same story every time in threads like this – make statements that are countered and instead of providing your own counterarguments, simply pick apart the semantics.

and if by “You’re practically oppressed, NCB” you mean “You clearly hold a minority opinion, NCB”, then yes I am practically oppressed

NCB, you have a great username. And that’s it.

NorthCoast:
The reasons that I hold my opinion that the Pac 10 sucks are primarily a result of the trends I’ve witnessed from the results on the field of play. I’ve honestly have never had the benefit of the talking heads from any network summarizing it for me, but I will for you if it will help to make you quit accusing me of being “squarely inside of the ESPN herd.”

In my lifetime (33 years) I’ve watched the Pac 10 schools combine to post the following records against the other power conferences:
-126-100-4 vs. the current big 10
-18-22 vs. the current ACC
-88-104-1 vs. the current Big 12
-23-43-6 vs. the current SEC

I’ve witnessed Pac 10 schools win just over half of the bowl games they’ve played in during that time.

I’ve seen the Pac 10 win a whopping one undisputed MNC, while winning four split titles in the same timespan.
This compared with:
Current ACC: 7 outright, 2 split
Current Big 12: 6 outright, 3 split
Current SEC: 5 outright, 3 split
Current Big 10: 3 outright, 1 split

In the same timeframe, only USC (at #12) UW (at #20) and UCLA (at #21) rank within the top 25 winningest teams in the NCAA.
In that time:
SEC Ranks 7 (ALA #8, UGA #11, UT #13, UF #15, AU #17, AR #22, LSU #25)
Big 12 Ranks 4 (NU #1, OU #4, UT #10, A&M #18)
ACC Ranks 4 (UM #6, FSU #7, CLEM #19, VT #24)
Big 10 Ranks 3 (UM #2, OSU #3, PSU #5)

In that time, only three schools in the Pac 10 (SC, UCLA & UW) even compile winning records AGAINST OTHER PAC 10 TEAMS!!

So think whatever you want about where I get the information that I use to form my opinions, because it’s all pretty irrelevant…the facts speak for themselves & they seem pretty clear as to why the pac 10 gets no respect. Do your own research, slice & dice the criteria (and timespans of such) however you see fit. I’m pretty confident that you’ll find the same results…that the Pac 10 has only enjoyed small smatterings of sporadic national relevance—at least when comparing themselves to the other true power football conferences (Big 12/SEC/ACC/Big 10). Take away USC and the pac 10 begins to more closely resemble the current Big East.

Until the Pac 10 displays a similar sustained success on the field as the other top conferences, the lack of respect these schools enjoy (supposedly a result of this vast media conspiracy that their fans cry about) can probably be more accurately attributed to a vast inferiority complex.

DT, all those bowl games were played on the road.

Marching Bands, Movie Previews, Counterstrike, blah, sissified.

That Song belongs to K-1 badass Jerome Le Banner.

DT, basically what you have shown is the Pac 10 is a more balanced conference. Without the benefit of a permenent underclass of teams like Vandy, KY, MIss and Miss State to whomp on every year things records even out as different teams rise to the top for awhile.

And considering your numbers show the Pac 10 beating the Big 10 in overall winning percentage and total number of MNC’s, why don’t you waste your time with “Big 10 SUX”?

oc phil, Exactly what I was trying to illustrate by pointing out that only three teams have managed a winning record within their own conference was that the Pac 10 is even LESS balanced. Now I’ll grant you that I didn’t examine the same process to see how it compared to the other conferences…mainly due to the ease of the Pac 10 being the only conference (of the five in question) that doesn’t include the complication of having added any teams or merged with another league sometime during the noted timeframe. But I can say that of the four categories of comparison that people like to throw around in making such arguments (head-to-head results, bowl results, MNC’s, overall wins/winning pct.) the Pac 10 hasn’t proven to fare too well during my brief time on Earth. Posting losing records while facing 3 of the 4 conferences they are trying to compare themselves to; winning just slightly more bowls than they’ve lost; coming in lower than all four other conferences in any sort of ranking of overall winning percentages; and having only a single team win more than 1/2 of a MNC are not compelling arguments that they should be considered as one of the big boys by this fan…no matter how “balanced” the conference may be.

However, I’d have no problem with anyone who’d want to take the position that (again, in my time as a fan) the pac 10 might have a debatable argument with the big 10 for the fourth seat at the big boy’s table. But the head-to-head comparison slants in the pac10’s favor, once again due to the presence of their big 3 (SC: 26-9, UCLA: 23-13-1, UW: 21-11) combining for 55% of all of the pac 10’s wins over the big 10. And when taking into account that 3 separate big ten teams have won or shared MNC’s, compared with two in the pac; that the big ten has 3 teams ranked among the top ten winners, where the pac has zero; and that the big ten has ND as an unofficial member…personally, I’d give the edge to the Big ten there.
But no, if that’s what your asking, I don’t think either of them have any realistic stake to claim anything more than being 4th-rate to the ACC, Big XII & SEC…at least not from what I’ve seen so far to date.

But you’re right, wasting my time with what I think about the big ten is a pretty moot point in this discussion. All I set out to do was to provide a satisfactory response to:
“THE POINT IS THAT THE ONUS IS NOT ON ME TO PROVE THAT THE PAC10 IS SO GREAT, IT IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE OTHER BCS CONFERENCES, WHICH YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE, HAVE NOT DONE.
Not a single poster in this thread made legitimate arguments to justify their claim the the Pac is much worse than the other conferences.”

“the facts speak for themselves & they seem pretty clear as to why the pac 10 gets no respect”.

In order for me to arrive at the conclusion that the Pac10 sucks, there must be overwhelming evidence that they are SIGNIFICANTLY worse than other conferences by OBJECTIVE measures. Let’s see what your facts say:

In 2 of the 3 metrics you use the Pac is clearly shown to be approximately equal that of the non-SEC conferences
Head to head records:
vs. Big10 – 54.8% winning
vs. ACC – 45%
vs. Big12 – 45.6 %
vs. SEC – 32 %
The only statistical outlier I see is the SEC record. The PacX OOC overall winning % is 48.6% (255-269-11, ties not included in calculation). Obviously we’d agree that a 50% record would mean the opposing conferences were equally good (using your metric). I’d say that 48.6 is sufficiently close to 50 to say that the Pac 10 is equally good. If your conclusion from these numbers is that the Pac10 is MUCH worse than the ACC or Big12, then it necessarily follows that the Pac is MUCH better than the Big10. I do not believe the latter to be true and thus I do not believe the former to be true either.

Top25 winningest teams:
Pac10 – 3
Big10 – 3
ACC – 4
Big12 – 4
SEC -7
Again, it is the SEC that appears as an outlier, not the Pac10

As for MNC’s , It is too difficult for me to determine who you are defining as the arbiters of the winner. What bodies are the splits between? Until I know the answer to this, it is impossible for me to refute. In response, though, to the constant claim that the Pac is USC + others, I would bet that the MNC results will show that the ACC is only FSU and Miami and the Big12 is only Texas and Oklahoma.

“I’ve witnessed Pac 10 schools win just over half of the bowl games they’ve played in during that time.”
So, how does this prove that the Pac10 sucks??? Show me the bowl records of the other conferences. Then show me they are siginificantly better than the Pac10 record.

“In that time, only three schools in the Pac 10 (SC, UCLA & UW) even compile winning records AGAINST OTHER PAC 10 TEAMS!!”

The fact that you do not see how self-evidently this reflects ONLY conference balance and not relative quality is astounding to me. I appreciate you bringing this up, though, as it validates the Pac10 claim that the other conferences always have the same teams at the top and simply have a group of perrenial doormats on which the top teams can pad their resumes.

You did demonstrate that the SEC is better than the Pac10. This I concede. Given your understanding of statistical analysis, one thing that YOU would say is demonstrated by these facts is that the Big10 sucks and the Pac10 is clearly superior. I do not believe this to be the case, given that the numbers do not demonstrate any clear conclusion to this end. The only clear conclusion demonstrated by significant stastical variation is that the SEC is better than the PacX.

I am finished with this. You will continue to look at the sport and find the conclusion that you wanted to see in the first place anyways. Thank you for confirming that there is indeed an agenda against the Pac10 and that most fans of the other conferences like it that way. It is beneficial to their teams and thus they will never come out against it.

Punditry overload! LAME! LAME! WEAK!

Who gives a crap about the conferences? As a Big 10(11) grad I have no loyalty to the conference that abuses my team (Minnesota) more regularly than all others combined. I hate Iowa, Michigan & Wisconsin far more than other teams-and I cheer for them to always lose in the bowl games my crappy alma mater can’t make it to.

It is all unfortunate that the perceived conference strength and a flawed BCS postseason system keeps down what we all want-playoffs. The conference structure gives us great traditional matchups and sometimes great conference championship games.

But it also makes us fork over money for pay per view game packages so we can avoid the dreaded regional conference matchup-Oregon v Arizona, Colorado v Iowa State, Indiana v. Illinois or Rutgers v Anyone instead of a great matchup. The conferences, bowl games and networks are all in bed together making a fortune and the fans and players get screwed.

I do share in the ESPN hatred evident here mostly because of invented personalities and hyped matchups (see USC & Nebraska this week).

NCB:
You decry the use of semantics to found one’s arguments, then you resort to little more than picking apart the mathematical semantics. You’re right, you’ve exposed me for not knowing jack squat about statistical analysis, but in doing so, you’ve exposed yourself as not being very knowledgeable in regard to the recent history of college football.
I suppose what really needs to be done is to examine all of the results of the 195 games the pac ten has played against the big 12, all 72 against the SEC, all 40 against the ACC & all 230 against the big 10 and assign a margin of difference similar to that which Chg did above (for the first two weeks for this season.) That would give a better picture of how the pac compares when facing the other conferences head-to-head. However, twisting the numbers to make the pac appear to be less sucky than I may have made them out to be doesn’t excuse the fact that the Pac has suffered a losing record to 3 of the 4 conferences in question, when playing them in head-to-head matchups. Whether that makes them substantially more sucky, or slightly more sucky is the semantic that you’d apparently like to debate here.

In your examination of the top 25 winningest teams, you’ve really leveled the playing field in an area where it doesn’t deserve to be leveled. In including the respective rankings with the list of teams I provided, it seems pretty obvious that extending the list to dip into the mid-20’s is actually being quite generous to the pac 10. Instead you’ve used the data to illustrate your belief that the #12, #20 & #21 ranked teams should somehow be given equal weight and consideration as the #2, #3 & #5 ranked teams? Look at the Pac compared to the BigXII for example…The best team in the BXii (#1 NU) has compiled 53 more wins and 37 less losses than the best team in the pac10 (#12 SC). BXii’s 2nd best team (#4 OU) has compiled 48 more wins and 44 less losses than the pac10’s second best (#20 UW). In third, #10 Texas has won 35 more games and lost 20 less than #21 UCLA. So even if you want to spin it that “the pac 10 has only one less team than the big12 in top 25 overall winning pct.” That doesn’t excuse the fact that the big 12’s 136 more wins and 101 less losses seperate the two groups that you want to make out to be so close in comparison. In any likely scenario, it would probably take dozens of years for the pac 10’s best teams to pass the best of the big 12 in this category.

But your comments about the MNC comparison is where any claims you want to make of being a knowledgable college football fan go out the window…
“As for MNC’s , It is too difficult for me to determine who you are defining as the arbiters of the winner. What bodies are the splits between?…I would bet that the MNC results will show that the ACC is only FSU and Miami and the Big12 is only Texas and Oklahoma.”
I guess you only pay attention to the seasons that SC wins the MNC—when you can ride their coattails while crunching the numbers to show that the oregons of the world should be taken seriously. Such a statement as you’ve made quickly displays your ignorance of some pretty easily-referenced facts…ones that most college football fans I know can pretty well rattle off the top of their head for the last twenty-five years or so. Like about 94.9597% of the nation over the last 5 years, you’ve managed to come off as being conveniently unaware of the fact that Nebraska completely dominated college football for the decade just prior to the turn of the 21st century.

Since you don’t even appear to know that much, (let alone that 4 ACC and 4 big 12 teams have won or split MNC’s in the last 25 years) you’ve gone a long way toward explaining your inability to understand or accept that the Pac10 has no business trying to include themselves in any discussion of who’s who among the nation’s elite conferences.

And Dylan, speaking as a fan of one of the handful of teams that can say they’ve posted an all-time winning record against EVERY conference (NU)…I agree that the whole argument of conference strength is pretty pointless to me, as well. But every now and then, I just like to pass the time while taking on uninformed fans who baselessly assert that I get all my knowledge strictly from Lee Corso.

“You decry the use of semantics to found one’s arguments, then you resort to little more than picking apart the mathematical semantics.”

There is no such thing as mathematical semantics. Semantics are differences between words. Statistical significance is not semantics. Statistical variation is a precise measurement of quantitative difference. Statistical significance is also not a subjective determination. There are clearly defined margins, based on the specific data in question, that determine whether a result is statistically significant or not.

“Whether that makes them substantially more sucky, or slightly more sucky is the semantic that you’d apparently like to debate here.”

Yes, I do want to debate that. “X sucks” implies that the difference between the thing that sucks and that which doesn’t suck is large. If something is “slightly more sucky”, then it doesn’t suck, it is simply silghtly not as good. However, given that we are talking about gross value-judgements like “X sucks” or “X dominates Y”, it is meaningless to say that one thing is slightly worse than the other. What is meaningful is if one is shown to be significantly better than the other (e.g. SEC vs Pac10). The fact that the stastical margin between the Pac and the non-SEC conferences is stastically insignificant invalidates a conclusion about relative quality. Thus, the conclusion shown by all of this data is that the ACC, Big10, and Big12 are comparable in quality, and the SEC is demonstrably better than the others. If I were to concede your assertion that the Pac10 doesn’t deserve to to sit at the big-boy’s table, then I would have to have seen that the others are substantially better.

Oh, and the MNC is stupid. Before the BCS, it was ALL subjectivity and politics. Now it is only mostly subjectivity and politics. Thus the reason there were as many as 5 different champions in certain years depending on who you asked.

Way to arbitrarily use your lifetime as the time-frame for discussion.

the inclusion of split championships as a tool to prove confernce strength or weakness is misguided. If anything it points to the very bias west coast fans rail against. Case in point: U-dub was the best team in the country in 1991, but shared the title with Miami.

DT- you make the point that north coast does not understand CFB. I dont think you understand the nature of PAC 10 parity. Any team in or conference has spent time as a powerhose at one point or another. Changes from top dog to just dog are common in less than 10 year periods. UW and Arizona were once conference and national powers now they are doormats. USC spent years in mediocraty. Oregon state was once good (long time ago) spent decades in the basement, was brifly a national power, and now is a cupcake again. Any given year Wazzu can be a pushover, or win the conference…etc, etc.

On multiple occasions, you’ve accused anyone who doesn’t believe your pac10 tripe as being “ESPN sheep”, “squarely inside of the ESPN herd” and that “the blatant Pac10 bashing is all bias and no reality”.
To this, I tried to show you that my “bias” against the pac 10 is derivative, not of anything I’ve seen or heard on TV (as you’ve asserted many times), but rather from a lifetime of witnessing that particular conferences’ futility (when compared to the truly elite members of the national arena.) You demanded that “legitimate arguments” be included…and I provided several legitimate arguments which illustrated how, from my own personal perspective, the pac 10 hasn’t enjoyed any sustainable success at the national level and is therefore basically irrelevant to any conversation about the nation’s elite. (Mind you…it’s not that I have any particular hatred for the pac10 at all…my lack of any connected emotion with regard to the conference is the very definition of “irrelevance”). But it’s pretty obvious that after demanding such evidence be provided, you find it easier to nitpick other people’s research than it is to actually conduct any of your own. (Ironic, considering that you’ve previously bemoaned the nitpicking of minutia to construct an argument…this is what I meant by “mathematical semantics”—although I should have guessed that such a play on words would be completely lost on such a math whiz like yourself.) Nevermind that, like I mentioned, you could probably carve up the data any way you want and still find similar trends in the results…but you don’t even bother to go that far. You ask for evidence that the pac ten is not as good as the big 4 conferences, all while you contend that the onus is not on you to rationalize your own beef with how the pac 10 gets no respect on a national scale…and after multiple pieces of evidence are provided, you cling to the claim that the difference is not “substantial” enough to be warranted. Otherwise, you dismiss any irrefutable piece of evidence as “stupid” and retreat to the same tired premise that it’s all the “subjective media’s fault” or ignore it altogether (as in the case of the vast discrepancy in all-time win pct. that exists between the “elite” Big 12 & Pac 10 teams.) And your willingness to leap to the conclusion that everyone who thinks the pac 10 sucks is little more than an espn drone makes about as much sense as your belief that the pac 10 can be judged on its merits as being the equal of the ACC or Big 12. Here’s a hint: if a school from the pac 10 (other than USC) actually came out some year, ran the table, and took home a MNC, you might then change your tune about “the MNC is stupid” and admit that such a statement pretty well defines the current disconnect between yourself and the typical college fan…many of us think that MNC’s are pretty important. I’ve seen my team win out on their schedule (leaving espn no choice but to cover it) three times in my life…and if it makes you feel any better, it really is quite satisfying to watch espn forced into the coverage of a team that they’d obviously rather not. But since that’s not likely to happen, in your case, any time soon…I’ll expect more of the same vitriolic rantings from you & others of your ilk—about how it’s all espn’s fault and how everyone who thinks that the pac 10 sucks is right to be accused of being under their spell.

Besides, I thought you were finished with this. I guess that’s just the type of thing that people say when they’re trying to get the last word in.

tzubear:
yours are good points, and you are right to mention the fact that I am far less informed as to the intricacies of the Pac 10 and their inter-conference history than I am the rest of the power cfb conferences. Thanks for this insight. But since NCB basically copped to not knowing that the University of Nebraska has won multiple national championships (and the first back-to-back undisputed titles in almost 40 years) in the very recent past…I’ll stand by my statements as to his acumen on the subject of national college football powers and their relevance.

Wow, you really got me there. Fine, you don’t get your bias from ESPN, you get it from some other source of bias towards the west. I would be finished if you hadn’t made utterly invented statements like “mathematical semantics”. Despite your contention, I did in fact include my own research. “Nitpicking” numbers is proper statistical practice. When results are shown not to be statistically significant, it is not nitpicking, it is called “rigorous quantitative analysis” and that is NOT a semantic distinction. Scientific rigor is a principle that is sadly missing in our society today. A society that continues to allow the persistence of paragons of ignorance like Creationism.

“I provided several legitimate arguments which illustrated how, FROM MY OWN PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, the pac 10 hasn’t enjoyed any sustainable success at the national level”

Thank you for admitting that you are making subjective statements based on your subjective interpretation of events you have personally witnessed. I was attempting to use objective criteria to demonstrate the falseness of an attitude that is based on your and the rest of the mainstream’s “personal perspective”

I made a huge oversight in regards to Nebraska – momentary lapse. The point is that every conference has it’s ruling party. In the Pac10, these teams have changed over the years, in the other conferences not so.

Using the MNC to dispute the existence of bias is circular. The rankings and MNC’s are the very embodiment of the subjectivity pervading the sport. Opinions dictate the rankings which dictate opinions.

Like I said, you will continue to see the conclusion that you wanted to see in the first place.

Anyways,
I think you said your team is Nebraska, so I wish a sincere Good Luck to the Huskers this year. Hopefully Oregon and USC will help prove me right this weekend.

Oh, one other thing, as I noted in the case of how long it would take the top-tier Pac teams to catch the top-tier BXII teams in overall wins…the practical reality of the head-to-head percentages that you’ve disparaged is that the Pac 10, if they were to go undefeated in all games against the Big12/ACC/SEC (a stretch, I know) would reverse the noted “insignificant” difference in about 3-4 years (against the B12/ACC) and reverse the trend against the SEC in about ten (figured at the rate of games played over the aforementioned 33 year timespan.)
And after throwing out split titles, they’d have to win the next 6 straight unanimous national titles (and have three teams other than SC & UW accomplish this) before they could be truly considered equal to the rest on the basis of this criteria.

So let’s all plan on getting back to this around about the time that jeb’s first term is over & see how the Pac 10 is coming along on reversing those insignificant trends.

“Jeb’s first term” – I think I just threw up in my own mouth

Thanks for the math lessons…
The sincerity of your wishes, at this point, are pretty suspect.
But thanks anyway…we will need whatever luck we can get, sincere or otherwise, this weekend.

One last thing, my own personal experience has also seen some very good pac-10 teams beat my Huskers. Having seen NU compile a 23-6 record against the pac, that’s usually is what it takes…and I do believe we’ll be playing one this weekend. In truth, that’s probably what has formulated my admittedly underwhelming knowledge of the pac-10 the most…when there’s a pac-10 team on the schedule, it’s usually chalked up as a W 90% of the time. I’m just hoping that the Huskers come out and play with the Trojans and don’t get embarrassed in the coliseum on Sat. nite. And I hope OU & CU lose EVERY weekend…like I said before, rooting for conferences isn’t one of my deals. Playing the devil’s advocate is, however.

"Jeb’s first term" – I think I just threw up in my own mouth"

Me too!!

Seriously, defending USC (by association) is a practice I’d rather not have to engage in ever again.

I will try to not put you in that position again…I actually learned a few things, which is more than I can say for most of the other internet debates I’ve participated in. (and largely due to the fact that I haven’t had a math class since trig in my junior year of HS). We Big 12/Pac 10 guys should stick together…we’re both on the same side of the bias, don’t you know? We both are forced to listen to someone shitty like Ron Thulin do our games every week.

But I just hate it when I hear Husker fans crying their diversionary excuses about “the media/espn/east coast bias” being against us. (which I do on a regular basis) It’s a convenient crutch to lean on at times when usually it’s just that…an excuse to distract from the fact that our team is not where we’d like them to be—when if they’d just win all their games, the talking heads could spout whatever they wanted & it wouldn’t make any difference. Ultimately, the sports media can only report on the events as they occur…and in the world of sports, the events on the field are conclusive…one team wins, the other loses…leaving very little room for creative license on the part of any media outlet. When I hear the same from fans of other teams, I usually have the same reaction…but I’m sorry if any of my points missed their intended aim.

And I withdraw what I said about your knowledge of football history, or lack thereof. I don’t know you and have no idea as to your level of expertise in this area…I was just pissed that the most dominant era of college football (one that is very dear to me) had slipped your mind. But like I said, not a terribly uncommon mistake to make, nowadays.

I would imagine that it would probably piss me off too if someone had left out the part of history where my team totally dominated. Unfortunately for my team that would have been about 80 years ago. For you see, I am in fact one of the many bitter Cal fans who was forced to suffer through the massive dissapointment of my team having their ass handed to them in one of the most important games in their team’s history. I have been forced to witness the ultimate heights of preseason hype and the subsequent bashing and hyperbole of how bad we are. Clearly, neither was true, but listening to the mainstream pundits go on and on about how Tedford is a fraud, we are going to suck this year, and we should just give up all hope of ever having a nationally respected program set me into a dizzying talespin of anger like I’ve never before experienced. Probably the most enfuriating was the disrespect shown to Tedford. Show me any coach that can take a 1-10 team to 7-5 in the span of a single off-season and a #5 final ranking in 3 seasons, and I"ll show you one of the best coaches in all of college football.

I do confess that I still have much to learn about the history and subtlety of the sport, and I too I learned a lot from this discussion. I totally agree that along with the Pac, the Big12 gets a totally unfair amount of criticism and lack of credit. Though, many make it out to be like the Pac is some two-bit conference like the WAC or something. Though we may not have quite as many banners to fly, I think the criticism we get is massively disproportionate. And so what if we are an offensively oriented conference? If you ask me, I’d rather watch a 42-31 barn burner over some 10-3 SEC snorefest any day of the week .

I especially hate the rankings because of the 2004 Mack Brown reach-around-fest which screwed us out of a rightly deserved and hard earned Rose Bowl bid. So, I have witnessed first hand how the corruption and politics in the ranking system can have a hugely negative affect. (and please, do not start in with me about the Holiday Bowl game against TexTech :-)

Stop by BearInsider once in a while and say what’s up. I post as RoseBowlBears – a handle resulting from having joined in november ’04, before said MackBrown reach-around-fest :

P.S. sorry about the snippy attitude. I’m still a little, ok a lot, sensitive since the bashing Cal got by the national media