T1B

Simple math. LSU scored 19 on Arkansas. USC dropped 70 on them.

That SEC sure is tough.

The PAC only has 4 teams above .500. Should Stanford lose to Notre Dame, half the conference will have losing records. Besides USC, the top ranked PAC team has exactly two wins against teams with winning records. One against mighty Montana, and the other against a Fresno State team who got fat on a shitty WAC schedule and has lost to every ranked team they've played. The same could be said of UCLA who won some hype over beating one of the worst Oklahoma teams in recent memory before getting smashed by 3-7 Arizona. Sure, the SEC is down...but compared to the PAC, Dude, you have exactly ONE team who could even hang in the SEC year in and year out.

Spinach Genie wrote: Dude, you have exactly ONE team who could even hang in the SEC year in and year out.

If you have to ankle-nip, try some originality at least.

Dude, you have exactly ONE team who could even hang in the SEC year in and year out.

Again, there is NO way to know how a team from one conference would do year in and year out if it was suddenly dropped into another conference.

Way too many variables and way too many elements of their program that would change.

This most favored of all SEC Honk arguments is always trotted out precisely because they will never have to back it up.

For all any of us know Auburn or LSU would do no better playing in the Pac 10 every year than they do playing in the SEC. They might even do worse.

Any such talk is nothing but pure conjecture so try as they may SEC Fan scores no points with that kind of talk...

What we do score points with is the most ranked teams year in and year out, the toughest defenses in the nation year in and year out, and managing to typically field more than half a conference of winning records. The PAC plays a few road OOC games and this somehow makes up for the fact that EVERY YEAR they are loaded with under .500 teams and schedules loaded with losing records?

It isn't even arguable, and that's why you never see the argument made by anyone other than bitter SC fans, angry the entire nation doesn't bow to their delusions of invincibility.

Bullshit.

The entire nation HAS bowed to the fact of SC's invincibility so all they're left with is lame attempts to disparage SC's conference.

Until the SEC stops fattening up solely on each other (plus a bunch of home games against Appalachian State, North Texas, Louisiana Monroe and North By Northwest Eastern Mississippi Tech) nobody will ever know how SEC teams would do if they were forced to play real schedules.

Until a team from the SEC gets dropped into the Pac 10 or Big 10 (or vice versa) we'll never know how they'd do if they played in those other conferences.

Pure conjecture. To argue otherwise is shallow sour grapes.

My personal feeling is the prehistoric offenses of teams in the SEC is the main reason for the defensive stats of SEC teams. Stick those teams in another conference and their entire personality would change over time as those easy defensive gimmes went out the window...

Arkansas gives up 70 to USC and LSU gives up 570 yards and a ton of points to ASU but when they go back to the cozy confines of the SEC it's awfully telling how everybody drops back down into the teens in scoring and the defenses suddenly look massive again...

Could Auburn or LSU score more points if they played in the Pac 10? Dunno, but I sure as fuck know they'd have to or else it'd by UCLA-OU all over the place...

Buc, give it up. Arguing the unproveable is just facile as hell and it smacks of last ditch desperation. I'm no more going to accept the notion that year in and year out the SEC would run roughshod over other conferences than you're going to accept the notion that the SEC would fall flat on its face if it suddenly had to contend with west coast offenses and coaches full time, every year.

We might as well argue religion and politics.

Real schedules?

Newsflash for you Van...you take the top five PAC teams...add up the wins and losses of their opponents, do the same with the top 5 SEC squads, and the SEC comes out on top. Before you start hollering about "quality opponents", those same five top SEC teams have a higher average of currently ranked teams on their schedules than their Pac counterparts. Get outside the conference, and you have the same Hawaiis, Montanas, Houstons, San Diego States, Rice, UC Davis and other weak sisters you so love to chide the SEC on. The SEC currently has 5 ranked teams to the PAC's three. They count 7 of the top 25 total defenses in the country to the PAC's zero. You PACers keep running the schedule argument, but it isn't there. Look at the number of MNC champs to come out of the SEC in the last couple of decades and compare it to the PAC. USC is a great team, but there is no comparing the schedule they play to an SEC one no matter how you want to spin it.

since 2000 the SEC is 3-7 head to head with the Pac 10.... 3 and fricken 7, it would be laughable that the SEC honks would try to argue against head to head numbers like that but these are the same toothless, sister raping cock suckers who dress up in Civil War costumes and play guns on the weekend.

3-7, there is no way to argue around that, Pac 10 fans can say "Hey if everyone in the Pac had 3 gimmes OOC then the conference would collectively have a better record," but Pac 10 fan doesnt need to say that cause Pac 10 fan has head to head and have won 70% of the head to head games vs the SEC. SEC fans can talk about how great their rankings are, in 2001 the Pac 10 had 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 10, but they dont need to cause head to head, the SEC is the Pac 10's bitch. The fact that the only notable win by any SEC team this year is LSU's squeaker vs an ASU team that struggled to beat Zona, also doesnt need to be brought up. That it only took USC 8 plays to score more points on Arkansas than most SEC teams have managed on the Pigs over an entire game doesnt need to be brought up. That Arkansas' 6 losses in the SEC were by a combined score in double digits lower than their 1 loss vs a Pac 10 team doesnt need to be brought up.



3-7
thats all that anyone needs to know, for all of the SEC's chest puffing they are 3-7 this century vs the Pac. Dont tell me about wins vs the Citadel or about 8 home game schedules, the only way to measure is in head to head meetings on the field and head to head the SEC is 3-7

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Simple math. LSU scored 19 on Arkansas. USC dropped 70 on them.

That SEC sure is tough.

You are a fucking tool. Ark played a lot of kids way back then. USC was LUCKY to get them early when they hadn't played much. Let me guess....that hasn't even entered your punk ass brain? You can't put down the PS2 controller long enough to have an original thought round here anymore. Why you get any respect in here(outside of USC's run) is beyond me. You don't bring much to the table besides ripping on people.

You have yet to come forward with your age which really tells me you are a young (probably spoiled brat) who has been handed much in his life without earning anything.

Let's talk ASU punk......LSU played them too....right after their state was destroyed and ASU couldn't beat them. Hell, LSU had to play their HOME game at their house. Isn't that the team that was rolling the shit out of USC????? 21-3?????

Either find some new material or STFU. I'm tired of putting you over my knee.

PS The other Trojan bitch calls out LSU's squeaker by ASU.....uhhh....another young punk who can't put down the PS2 controller to read their own schedule....ASU was up 21-3.......great example.....

USC Trojans at Arizona State Sun Devils
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
#1 USC (4-0) 0 3 14 21 38 FINAL
#14 ASU (3-2) 7 14 0 7 28
October 1, 2005 - Sun Devil Stadium

Fucking tards. Can't wait for USC to lose so you fucks will go back into the woodwork and under those rocks.

SoCalTrjn wrote:since 2000 the SEC is 3-7 head to head with the Pac 10.... 3 and fricken 7, it would be laughable that the SEC honks would try to argue against head to head numbers like that but these are the same toothless, sister raping cock suckers who dress up in Civil War costumes and play guns on the weekend.

3-7, there is no way to argue around that, Pac 10 fans can say "Hey if everyone in the Pac had 3 gimmes OOC then the conference would collectively have a better record," but Pac 10 fan doesnt need to say that cause Pac 10 fan has head to head and have won 70% of the head to head games vs the SEC. SEC fans can talk about how great their rankings are, in 2001 the Pac 10 had 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 10, but they dont need to cause head to head, the SEC is the Pac 10's bitch. The fact that the only notable win by any SEC team this year is LSU's squeaker vs an ASU team that struggled to beat Zona, also doesnt need to be brought up. That it only took USC 8 plays to score more points on Arkansas than most SEC teams have managed on the Pigs over an entire game doesnt need to be brought up. That Arkansas' 6 losses in the SEC were by a combined score in double digits lower than their 1 loss vs a Pac 10 team doesnt need to be brought up.



3-7
thats all that anyone needs to know, for all of the SEC's chest puffing they are 3-7 this century vs the Pac. Dont tell me about wins vs the Citadel or about 8 home game schedules, the only way to measure is in head to head meetings on the field and head to head the SEC is 3-7

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU STUPID TARD.....

I already DESTROYED this in another thread. I listed the games....

List the games......you played a bunch of bottom feeders. That would be like me coming in here and claiming superiority by saying we beat Wash ST, Stanford, Arizona, and OSU. The teams you beat when you played basically were NOT the best of teh SEC...not even close. But I guess that doesn't matter to the 12 year olds that roam this board. You guys really are bringing this board down. Either get some humility, slice of humble pie, or find a new place to act like assholes. Wearing thin round here.

Before you cry.....list the games and let everyone ELSE decide if your post is valid.

Jsc810 wrote:

Van wrote:The entire nation HAS bowed to the fact of SC's invincibility

Complete horseshit. USC is an excellent team but they can be beat, and will be beat by Texas, assuming the two play each other.

Jsc, I was kidding there. I guess I should've added one of these... :wink:

Obviously nobody is invincible. My point being that everybody's given up on ragging on USC so they've moved on to ragging on the Pac 10...

Buc, as long as your SEC W-L records are built entirely on playing nobody but each other (with no OOC schedule to speak of) I really don't care about your W-L records and your rankings. It's all smoke and mirrors until you regularly start playing somebody OOC and your main argument remains moot: We'll never know how any team would do if they changed conferences, not until it actually happens.

SoCalTrjn wrote:since 2000 the SEC is 3-7 head to head with the Pac 10.... 3 and fricken 7, it would be laughable that the SEC honks would try to argue against head to head numbers like that but these are the same toothless, sister raping cock suckers who dress up in Civil War costumes and play guns on the weekend.

Melt, you weak fuck. Melt!

Van wrote: Buc, as long as your SEC W-L records are built entirely on playing nobody but each other (with no OOC schedule to speak of) I really don't care about your W-L records and your rankings. It's all smoke and mirrors until you regularly start playing somebody OOC and your main argument remains moot: We'll never know how any team would do if they changed conferences, not until it actually happens.

You don't play anyone regularly OOC, Van. USC hangs a lot of laurels on one shitty yearly match with a Notre Dame team who has sucked for quite some time. Other than that, your OOC sched's across the PAC board are typically as or more laughable than the SEC's...the difference is, the SEC is annually full of ranked teams and the PAC is full of teams under .500. Looking at the top 5 in each conf. again, the Pacs top OOCs in that group consist of Notre Dame (ranked), Arkansas (4-7), Oklahoma (6-4), and Navy (6-4). In the same top SEC programs, OOC you have Arizona State (6-5), Georgia Tech (ranked), Boise State (8-3) and Florida State (ranked). I don't see the massive mismatch in OOC scheds...in fact, the SEC teams is actually a bit stronger. It's the only argument you PACies have and it's pretty weak.

Van wrote:

Dude, you have exactly ONE team who could even hang in the SEC year in and year out.

Again, there is NO way to know how a team from one conference would do year in and year out if it was suddenly dropped into another conference.

Way too many variables and way too many elements of their program that would change.

This most favored of all SEC Honk arguments is always trotted out precisely because they will never have to back it up.

For all any of us know Auburn or LSU would do no better playing in the Pac 10 every year than they do playing in the SEC. They might even do worse.

Any such talk is nothing but pure conjecture so try as they may SEC Fan scores no points with that kind of talk...

Van, watching you go back & forth with nimrod reminds me of my wife talking to her cat...why bother?

USC hangs a lot of laurels on one shitty yearly match with a Notre Dame team who has sucked for quite some time.

Sorry, my friend...but that's also a melt in my book. USC and ND have occasionally been down during the vast expanse of their rivalry, but for the most part, they have shared one of the great rivalries in CFB history. This year's game was definitely a classic, and it had huge implications on the CFB standings. IMO, every laurel accorded the matchup is definitely earned.

Personally, I was shocked at the way USC traveled to Auburn and laid down a wicked thumping in early 2003. That's pretty much when I was convinced of their quality.

I said "for some time" PSU. It's truth, hardly a melt. This is the first season Notre Dame has even been relevant for quite a few years. As to the USC/AU win, USC is a great team. No argument. That also was one of the worst AU teams in recent history...without a doubt.

The Seer wrote: Van, watching you go back & forth with nimrod reminds me of my wife talking to her cat...why bother?

Glancing at your posts, my guess would be the cat is a more interesting conversation.

PSUFAN wrote: Personally, I was shocked at the way USC traveled to Auburn and laid down a wicked thumping in early 2003. That's pretty much when I was convinced of their quality.

Uhhhh...that Auburn team sucked. Very impressive. That's like saying USC went to Penn State that same year(I think that was a bad year for you guys too). No big deal.

Uhhhh...that Auburn team sucked.

Thanks for the update. At the time of the game, many expected AU to rock them. The fact is that it was a ballsy OOC matchup at the time.

Spinach Genie wrote:No argument. That also was one of the worst AU teams in recent history...without a doubt.

That shitty AU team with three first round draft picks.

what a fuckin' idiot.

Spinach Genie wrote:I said "for some time" PSU. It's truth, hardly a melt. This is the first season Notre Dame has even been relevant for quite a few years. As to the USC/AU win, USC is a great team. No argument. That also was one of the worst AU teams in recent history...without a doubt.

Since you are purring at your master's feet, why not also concede that the sec plays NOBODY out of conference...

Sirfindafold wrote:

Spinach Genie wrote:No argument. That also was one of the worst AU teams in recent history...without a doubt.

That shitty AU team with three first round draft picks.

what a fuckin' idiot.

I'd say you're the idiot. Did you pay attention to that season? We had to shove a jumped up OL coach with no OC experience into the role and basically had a "run it into the line 3 times and out" offense. Georgia and LSU stomped the shit out of Auburn that year worse than USC did. The next year with the same talent, Auburn beat both.

The Seer wrote:

Spinach Genie wrote:I said "for some time" PSU. It's truth, hardly a melt. This is the first season Notre Dame has even been relevant for quite a few years. As to the USC/AU win, USC is a great team. No argument. That also was one of the worst AU teams in recent history...without a doubt.

Since you are purring at your master's feet, why not also concede that the sec plays NOBODY out of conference...

Really? Seems Florida will be playing FSU today. It also seems the SEC has produced more MNCs by different teams in the last 20 years than any other conference. But keep patting yourself on the back with the OOC rubbish...if my team played in a conference as shitty as the PAC, I'd likely do the same.

Buc, SC's traditional OOC hardly includes only one game against ND every year.

Don't be ridiculous. Along with Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State USC is the one school that has traditionally gone out of their way to travel to a huge OOC opening game each season.

Nobody in the SEC except for Florida plays anybody tough out of conference every season and when they do (cough, Auburn, cough) they lose, badly, and then they make sure to never repeat such a scheduling mistake again and it's back to a steady diet of home games against lame directional schools...

Don't confuse a few years with history, Van. The SEC is maximizing dollars and home games the past few years, yes...but the SEC still puts more teams in bowls, are steadily in the BCS hunt and in the past has mixed it up with as many of the top schools as any. This bowl season should tell the tale. USC is a great team, but they are the only reliably strong team in that conference. They get fat on an in-conference schedule of mostly sub-500 schools while the SEC clash heads with a conference schedule loaded with top 25s. You can run it around all you like, but outside of USC, where is the strength of the PAC? 4 different SEC squads have been given an MNC in the last 20 years. Others should have had the opportunity. The PAC will be bitter, but in 10 more years the SEC will still be loading the polls and driving the game while the PAC will still only have USC.

History?

History says USC has always scheduled better than any SEC team.

As for the Pac 10 any given season can see a Washington, UCLA or Oregon ranked very highly and this season alone sees an undefeated USC team and two one loss teams, all three of which could still be BCS bound by season's end...

Van wrote:all three of which could still be BCS bound by season's end...

This is completely impossible. The BCS only allows 2 teams per conference.

T REX wrote:
You are a fucking tool. Ark played a lot of kids way back then. USC was LUCKY to get them early when they hadn't played much..

Typical SEC dumbfuck, not knowing a damn thing about his own conference.

Here's who Arkansas has beaten since that game was played:

LA-Monroe
Mississippi
Mississippi State

Arkansas really grew up this year, didn't they? One miserable directional school and the absolute wretches of the SEC. Don't give me the close games they've lost, because all that counts at the end of the day are your W's and L's.

I'm sure Pete Carroll is thankful he doesn't have to line up against those Razorbacks now.

Shawn Marion wrote:

Van wrote:all three of which could still be BCS bound by season's end...

This is completely impossible. The BCS only allows 2 teams per conference.

All three could still end up BCS eligible.

Van wrote:

Shawn Marion wrote:

Van wrote:all three of which could still be BCS bound by season's end...

This is completely impossible. The BCS only allows 2 teams per conference.

All three could still end up BCS eligible.

They'd be fortunate to get two BCS eligible. Oregon's marquis win was a squeaker against an upjumped mid-conference team who got put down by almighty Nevada last night. There's no danger of three.

Agreed.