Conference Argument Redux

[JayDuck]

[align=center]The Pac-10 - Power Conference of the New Millennium[/align]
Wake up people! The Pac-10 is the best conference in college football. Times change, and during the last five years the Pac-10 has been the strongest football conference - The Power Conference of the New Millennium.

I can already hear the shrieks of protest. After all, the concept of Pac-10 dominance is totally foreign to the sporting press. Why is this? Let's be charitable and skip over the arguments of East Coast bias, the importance of ESPN contracts in molding media and public opinion, and the effect of time zones. Let's just say that humans are slow to recognize change. (Hey, there was a time when communism was sweeping the world).

Those who follow college football have been reluctant to acknowledge the current shift in power towards the West Coast. But the evidence is overwhelming. Let's take a look.

First, we'll skip time-wasting arguments. While Utah was a fantastic team in 2004, and the Mountain West conference is a top-notch non-BCS conference, there is no sense in muddying our analysis with non-BCS conferences. Sorry, but there is a reason these conferences are excluded from the BCS party.

Second, let's strip away the factors that make conferences difficult to compare. Number of conference teams in the Top 25? Too subjective. Number of conference teams with winning records of 10-win seasons? Apples and oranges. For example, out of conference, the Pac-10 plays many Mountain West and WAC teams, while the SEC and Big-12 play many more Sun Belt teams. Which do you think is tougher?

So let's not look at subjective factors like poll rankings or attempt to compare schedules that are not the same. An objective analysis should focus on what can actually be fairly compared: head-to-head competition among the BCS conferences.

The Bowl Championship Series is clearly an imperfect system. To its credit, however, the BCS has provided yearly matchups between the best teams from the best conferences. Guess what? In the last five years, when the big boys have met in the BCS, the Pac-10 has ruled:

Bowl Championship Series Records 2000 - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------
League Record Winning Pct. Avg. Margin of Vict.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pac-10 6-1 86% 23
SEC 5-1 83% 14
Big East 3-2 60% 14
Big-12 3-5 38% 11
Big-10 2-5 29% 7
ACC 0-5 0% 0
------------------------------------------------------

This, my friends is dominance. "But Hey", argues the SEC apologist, "that is just a handful of games!". You can't seriously base your argument on 20 games over five years!".

OK, let's look at all of the games that the BCS conference members have played against each other (and Notre Dame) over the last five years. Guess what? The Pac-10 has the best record there, too - though the chart shows the tremendous parity in the game today.


League record vs. Teams from other BCS Leagues
----------------------------------------------------
Pac-10 48-46
Big-10 57-57
SEC 47-47
ACC 54-54
Big-12 45-45
Big East 44-49
-----------------------------------------------------

While this data isn't as resounding, it's still clear-cut. Bottom line: Over the past five seasons, the Pac-10 has excelled both in BCS games and in regular season games against BCS conference teams. Argument over. It is as simple as this - when the top leagues have faced off head to head over the last five years, the Pac-10 has more than held its own.

So the next time you hear a commentator claim that the Pac-10 is "down" or "weak", ask yourself a question. Is the commentator making an objective, factually based statement, or is he simply giving voice to what he wants to be true?

- Mitch Jensen
Athlon Sports

[Killian]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

[JayDuck]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

non sequitur

[Cicero]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

Cause Mack Brown sold his soul to the Devil.

[Killian]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

non sequitur

Why, because it doesn't fit into your argument?

[JayDuck]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

non sequitur

Why, because it doesn't fit into your argument?

No, because being "the best" is not synonymous with being in a BCS game.

[MuchoBulls]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

Cause Mack Brown sold his soul to the Devil.

Wasn't there a newspaper article saying that Bob Stoops voted Texas #2, thus getting Texas ahead of Cal?

[Killian]

So a confrence that only has one team in the BCS and two teams eligible is better than other confrences that do place two teams in the BCS and have three or more teams eligible?

[Mr T]

Only one appearance in a BCS Championship game yet the Pac-10 is the Power Conference of the New Millennium?

:roll:

1998 Winner: SEC, Runner Up: ACC
1999 Winner: ACC, Runner Up: Big East
2000 Winner: Big XII, Runner Up: ACC
2001 Winner: Big East, Runner Up: Big XII
2002 Winner: Big 11, Runner Up: Big East
2003 Winner: SEC, Runner Up: Big XII
2004 Winner: Pac-10, Runner Up Big XII

Appearances:
Big XII: 4
ACC: 3
Big East 3
SEC: 2
Big 11: 1
Pac-10: 1

[TheChief]

^^^^ Kinda shoots that article down.

[JayDuck]

No..again, it's a complete non sequitur as far as the article is concerned.

Playing in the BCS title game is based on subjective matters. The article is concerned only with objective matters. Head to Head wins.


The Pac-10 has played in the 2nd most BCS games and won the most.

The Pac-10 also has the best head to head record against BCS conferences.

The other arguments are subjective and impossible to accurately gague. They are used as justifications. not as proof.

[Spinach Genie]

Half the damned PAC was below .500 last season. One team from the PAC has even been in the BCS picture in the last several years. How many from the SEC, Big 10 and ACC have been there? Who consistently wins bowl games?

Face it. The PAC 10 is the weakest of the majors. They get fat on a conference schedule full of pansies and then crow about the couple of biggies they play OOC, while the rest of the major conferences are loaded with top 25s every season.

Bad argument. Cal has been USCs perennial also-ran of late and after all the hype they came with last year, one of the upper 12 bottoms feeders shellacked them. This argument is laughable.

[Killian]

The Pac-10 has played in the 2nd most BCS games and won the most.

No, because being "the best" is not synonymous with being in a BCS game.

Maybe we should look at teams that qualified for bowls as a measure of strength in a conference. Or look at bowl records. But by saying one conference is better than another based on head to head record, with no qualifiers, is complete horseshit. Who have these teams played?

USC is top dog, no doubt. But how would Cal play against the big boys from other conferences? USC proved they can handle the likes of UofM and OU. Can Cal?

[JayDuck]

USC is top dog, no doubt. But how would Cal play against the big boys from other conferences? USC proved they can handle the likes of UofM and OU. Can Cal?

Why Cal?

Oregon also beat Michigan, when we were just the 3rd place Pac-10 team that same year too.

[Killian]

You also lost to Indiana, last year. My point is that the second best team from the Pac 10 hasn't played a top team from another conference. MSU doesn't count.

[JayDuck]

Again...why is it so important that it's the "second place team", speciffically that needs to do that.

As I pointed out, we had our 3rd place team beat the Big 10 champ.

As a conference, we've played as tough of a non-conference schedule as any other conference and came out with a better record.

You can use any critera you want to justify teams in whatever order you want to. But, saying that the head to head record isn't the most important factor is simply self-serving.

[TheChief]

Trying to support an article written about how the Pac 10 is the strongest conference in the land seems a bit self-serving to me.

Lets ask the Pros! I wonder how many professional football players the Pac 10 has in the NFL as compared to the ACC?

I know, I know that stat doesn't matter either... :roll:

[JayDuck]

Trying to support an article written about how the Pac 10 is the strongest conference in the land seems a bit self-serving to me.

Lets ask the Pros! I wonder how many professional football players the Pac 10 has in the NFL as compared to the ACC?

I know, I know that stat doesn't matter either... :roll:

Look it up. You might be suprised

[Killian]

But, saying that the head to head record isn't the most important factor is simply self-serving.

Bullshit. Besides Michigan playing Oregon or Washington in '01 and '02, who has the Pac-10 played from the major confrences in the past 4 years? Not including bowl games, I can think of (excluding bowl games):

Washington vs. OSU (L) '03
Washington vs. IU (W) '04
Washington vs. UofM (W) '01
Washington vs. UofM (L) '02
Washington vs. ND (L) '04
Washington St vs. OSU (L) '02
Washington St vs. ND (L) '03
Oregon vs. UofM (W) '03
Oregon vs. IU (L) '04
Cal vs MSU (W) '02
USC vs. ND (L) '01
USC vs. ND (W) '02
USC vs. ND (W) '03
USC vs. ND (W) '04
USC vs. AU (W) '02
USC vs. AU (W) '03
SU vs. ND (W) '01
SU vs. ND (L) '02
SU vs. ND (L) '03
SU vs. ND (L) '04

I do see OSU twice, Michigan 3 times and Auburn twice. I don't see Miami, FSU, UF, OU, Texas, etc. Claiming a winning record against ND, IU, and MSU is fine, but admit you're not consistently beating the best the other confrences have to offer.

[JayDuck]

Bullshit. Besides Michigan playing Oregon or Washington in '01 and '02, who has the Pac-10 played from the major confrences in the past 4 years? Not including bowl games, I can think of (excluding bowl games):

First off. You've changed the length of time to 4 years, instead of the 5 years that the article mentions.


In non-conference games, not counting bowl games, the Pac-10 has also played Texas once, Miami twice, Oklahoma twice, Iowa twice, Ohio State twice, LSU twice, since 2000 off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others I am forgetting.

[Harvdog]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

Cause Mack Brown sold his soul to the Devil.

And then went out and beat a good Michigan team while Cal got their collective asses handed to them by the 4th place team in the Big XII. :roll:

[Killian]

Bullshit. Besides Michigan playing Oregon or Washington in '01 and '02, who has the Pac-10 played from the major confrences in the past 4 years? Not including bowl games, I can think of (excluding bowl games):

First off. You've changed the length of time to 4 years, instead of the 5 years that the article mentions.


In non-conference games, not counting bowl games, the Pac-10 has also played Texas once, Miami twice, Oklahoma twice, Iowa twice, Ohio State twice, LSU twice, since 2000 off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others I am forgetting.

Fair enough, but my memory of the Pac 10 in 2000 is a little hazy. But, how has Texas, OU, Miami and LSU fared against the Pac 10?

[JayDuck]

Miami Lost to Washington in 2000 and beat Washington in '01
Texas Lost to Stanford in 2000
OSU beat Washington St and Washington
Oklahoma beat UCLA and Oregon
Iowa was 1-1 against Arizona State
LSU beat OSU and Arizona


Oklahoma played in the National Title game both years that they beat Oregon and UCLA.
OSU played in the national title game the year that they beat Washington St.
LSU played in the National Title game the year that they beat Arizona.
Miami played in the National Title game the year that they beat Washington.


Again, we've played as tough of a non-conference schedule as any conference out there and we have the best record in it, as well.

[Degenerate]

League record vs. Teams from other BCS Leagues
----------------------------------------------------
Pac-10 48-46
Big-10 57-57
SEC 47-47
ACC 54-54
Big-12 45-45
Big East 44-49
-----------------------------------------------------

While this data isn't as resounding, it's still clear-cut.

:roll:

Two games over .500 is "clear-cut?" All that shows is the Pac-10 is right around there with everyone else and that the Big East probably isn't.

[Jimmy Medalions]

I could give a rat's ass what any conference is rated.

Bottom line: we won-out in a 'weak' conference last year and then laid a beat-down on a good team from a 'superior' conference.

Bottom bottom line: conference rankings are for discussion purposes only.

Bottom bottom bottom line: the SEC is the most fun to watch of any conference. Period.

out.

[SunCoastSooner]

Yeah Cal really showed how much they deserved to be in the BCS against Texass Tech. :roll:

[Vito Corleone]

If they're the best confrence, why was Cal not playing in a BCS game?

Cause Mack Brown sold his soul to the Devil.

Didn't the PAC 10 #2 take a beating by the Big 12 #4?

Didn't UCLA take a beating from Wyoming?

PAC 10 people are so damn quick to ride USC's coattails and claim that their dominance equates to the whole conference. I thought the beating Cal took would have humbled...Guess not.

[SoCalTrjn]

was there this much talk about texas losing in the Holiday bowl the year before last? and to an also ran in the Pac 10? The Holiday bowl for some reason always seems to have a team playing in it that is pissed that they are there, and then that team gets smacked. Cal was a good team last year, they had some key injuries at the end of the season that hurt them but they were a very good team. USC also kicked the shit out of Colorado a couple times in the last few years, as did Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl after Colorado had won the big 12 title.
ND isnt in a BCS conference so comparing wins and losses to them doesnt really matter.
Cal and UCLA both blew it in their bowl games last year.
The only ways to truly compare conferences is in head to head games and bowl game winning percentages, rankings are usually fluffed up.

[Killian]

ND isnt in a BCS conference so comparing wins and losses to them doesnt really matter.

Didn't read the original post, did ya?

[SoCalTrjn]

my mistake, i didnt see the (and Notre Dame) part of the original article.
It just amazes me that fans from certain conferences are so quick to go to "polls" to determine how good they are instead of stuff like head to head competition and conferences performance in bowl games.
When a conference, as a whole, fattens up on home games vs Sun Belt and 1aa teams they enter conference play with bloated racords and unrealistic rankings, these conferences teams are normally exposed in Bowl Games when they finally play real competition from outside of their conference
Bottom line was that only the Big 12 had played in more BCS bowl games than the Pac 10 over the last 5 years and no other conference was closeto the Pac 10's record in BCS bowl games (USC only won 3 of those 6) The BCS title game isnt a good indicator ofconference strength, its one game and not all the conferences are represented, but the BCS bowls as a whole represents them and the Pac has been the best in the BCS bowls, that is unarguable.

[RedHerring]

my mistake, i didnt see the (and Notre Dame) part of the original article.
It just amazes me that fans from certain conferences are so quick to go to "polls" to determine how good they are instead of stuff like head to head competition and conferences performance in bowl games.
When a conference, as a whole, fattens up on home games vs Sun Belt and 1aa teams they enter conference play with bloated racords and unrealistic rankings, these conferences teams are normally exposed in Bowl Games when they finally play real competition from outside of their conference
Bottom line was that only the Big 12 had played in more BCS bowl games than the Pac 10 over the last 5 years and no other conference was closeto the Pac 10's record in BCS bowl games (USC only won 3 of those 6) The BCS title game isnt a good indicator ofconference strength, its one game and not all the conferences are represented, but the BCS bowls as a whole represents them and the Pac has been the best in the BCS bowls, that is unarguable.

Goddamn it, get rid of that avatar It's hypnotizing me below the equator...

[SoCalTrjn]

the shouldnt you have just quoted the image?
and not the post?

[Mr T]

Bottom bottom bottom line: the SEC is the most fun to watch of any conference. Period.

Rack!

[Mr T]

Jayduck,

I dont think the Pac-10 is weak but you have to look at yourself and see your a fucking moron for thinking the Pac-10 is the Power Conference of the New Millennium.

At the moment there is not a power conference. The closest thing last year was the Big XII South but as soon as you add the North they shoot back down to being average.

[SoCalTrjn]

the big 12 south champ was down 55-10 in their bowl game before the Pac 10 team put the back ups on the field.
what is it Rome says?
S C O R E B O A R D

[Vito Corleone]

the big 12 south champ was down 55-10 in their bowl game before the Pac 10 team put the back ups on the field.
what is it Rome says?
S C O R E B O A R D

And once again we are back to the whole PAC 10 ridding the jock of USC.

The fact is that of all the Big 12 South teams OU probably had the 3rd best pass defense in the conference. They were lit up all year by quality passing teams. To be surprised that the best passing team in the country lit them up is like being surprised when Jon says something Gay.

[buckeye_in_sc]

i am in agreement one team does not a conference make...

rack Jimmy though...SEC is fun...but damn I get sick of hearing about the SEC and ACC (sup Chief, Mr. T, and Nolsey)!

Big 10 rules and all you others suck...rack me I am out...

by the way Florida will run everyone this year and Urban Meyer is the shit...there is no one better...

[Mr T]

but damn I get sick of hearing about the SEC and ACC (sup Chief, Mr. T, and Nolsey)

The only thing I have posted recently about the ACC is FSUs off-field troubles.

My bad. Didnt know that bothered you.

:roll:

[SoCalTrjn]

USC had only won 3 of the 6 BCS bowls that the Pac 10 had won over the last 5 years, take the trojans out of it and the Pac has a 3-1 record in BCS bowls. Those 3 wins are still as many as the Big 12 or Big 10 could muster among all of their teams during that time and more than what the ACC and Big East had combined to win.
How do you guys not see such glaring evidence?

[buckeye_in_sc]

buckeye_in_sc wrote:
but damn I get sick of hearing about the SEC and ACC (sup Chief, Mr. T, and Nolsey)

The only thing I have posted recently about the ACC is FSUs off-field troubles.

My bad. Didnt know that bothered you.

should have clarified it...i meant on talk radio here in charlotte...at least you FSU guys and to an extent most of the SEC guys in here (READ NOT TRIX) know what the fuck they are talking about...


who gives a flying fuck about conference shit...I can claim tOSU is one of the top 4 or 5 teams over the last few years and because of that the Big 10 is the shit...I mean take USC out of the equation and what do you get again? The only team I remember from the PAC 10 making a BCS bowl in recent memory was WSU and didn't they get their asses handed to them? Oh wait UDUB did win the Rose against Purdue...ok great...don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back...what else has the PAC 10 done outside of SC lately? ABSOFUCKING LOUTELY NOTHING...ask CAL how it tasted last year!

anyway until we get a playoff this conference shit is lame...can we fucking move onto something else?