The main point they make is the correct one, in that location would go a long way towards determining who wins each game in the Challenge.
Oregon vs Penn St, as their #2 seeds? Yeah, I think it's safe to say that PSU wins in Happy Valley and Oregon fares much better at Autzen. (Interesting, that they have Oregon and not Cal as the Pac's #2 seed in this hypothetical Challenge.)
Cal? That's obvious. I don't see any Big 10 team other than maybe OSU going into Berkeley and winning, and I wouldn't give Cal a snowball's chance in hell of going into The Horsehoe or Happy Valley and winning. Cal would also struggle at Wisky, Michigan St and maybe Iowa too. Most years, obviously, they'd lose at Michigan.
Hate to say it, 'cause I'm the one saying it, but I really think USC is the only team from either league that would win most of their interconference roadies against their equal seed.
These two leagues are just very frustrating. Each league has a clear path to BCS conference equality, and they just can't quite manage it.
The Big 10?
-Their best teams need to begin to consistently win big bowl games. That'll likely be the most difficult thing, because it requires significant improvement and favorable match-ups. Being that they're locked into the Rose Bowl this means they're going to need to win BCS title games, Rose Bowls and Fiesta Bowls. They're going to have to beat the SEC, USC and either Texas or OU. They're not going to luck into any Orange Bowls against some 9-4 ACC team.
-Michigan needs to get back to being Michigan. This can't be stressed enough. The Big 10 cannot afford to have their flagship program mired in mediocrity, or worse. Bare minimum, the Big 10 needs to be a two team monster.
-PSU becoming a consistent monster, thus making the Big 10 a three team monster, that'd finish the deal. PSU has got to get off the seasonal roller coaster. They need to get back to being the PSU of the '80s, when they were a perennial national title contender.
Other than that, okay, sure, it'd also be a big help if the traditional mid-tier teams in the Big 10 (Wisky, MSU, Illinois and Iowa) could manage to elevate themselves into consistent 9 game winners. Maybe burp up a conference title season here and there, but never fall below .500, or even flirt with .500.
The Pac 10?
-Cal and Oregon need to take that next step, from perennial hopefuls to perennial powerhouses. This is the single biggest issue vexing the Pac 10 right now. Nobody is consistently stepping up and making a year-to-year push to get into and stay in the Top 10, and these two are the most likely candidates to do it. They must stop underachieving. The big, ugly losses need to end.
-UCLA has to wake the fuck up. There is no excuse for a major program in L.A. to be this dogshit, this often. UCLA should be physically dominating most people. They have too many resources to always be this soft. This business of looking great one week and then losing 59-0 the next week has to stop. They have to get more physical, and stay there. UCLA has to be a consistent 9 win team, with occasional title aspirations. That's national title, not just Pac 10 title. UCLA should be sticking their noses in that hunt, at least once every half dozen years or so.
-Washington needs to return to respectability, with the occasional great team. This one's obvious.
-At least one of the two Arizona schools needs to become a consistent 9 win team.
The biggest thing is UCLA, Cal or Oregon needs to take that next step, to where the Pac 10 annually has two BCS bowl-quality teams. This will probably fall on Oregon or Cal. They're the most likely candidates.
Assfucking USC's national title chances by killing their SOS with a league wide tank-job, this has to stop.
Cal...Oregon...UCLA. One of you: Step up, and stay there.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:57 am
by Blueblood
Van wrote:
Oregon vs Penn St, as their #2 seeds? Yeah, I think it's safe to say that PSU wins in Happy Valley and Oregon fares much better at Autzen. (Interesting, that they have Oregon and not Cal as the Pac's #2 seed in this hypothetical Challenge.)
Shit for brains.... they have Cal and not Oregon as their #2 team.
At least they know that Cal has the second best record in the PAC 10 since Tedford arrived at Cal and has beaten Oregon the last 4 outta 5 years.
At least they know this.
Not that Vannie would.
Van wrote:Cal? That's obvious. I don't see any Big 10 team other than maybe OSU going into Berkeley and winning, and I wouldn't give Cal a snowball's chance in hell of going into The Horsehoe or Happy Valley and winning. Cal would also struggle at Wisky, Michigan St and maybe Iowa too. Most years, obviously, they'd lose at Michigan.
Pssst.... Cal beat #15 Michigan State in East Lansing in Tedford's first year.
Yep, my error. I thought that Rittenberg guy paired Oregon with PSU, not Cal with PSU. My mistake.
For the record: m2, that's all it was was. I thought I heard the guy pair PSU with Oregon. That's it. It wasn't some judgment on my part about Oregon over Cal, it was merely my mishearing what that guy said about the seeds.
Got it? Good. Now let's move on.
Same deal, though, substituting Cal for Oregon. Cal does not go into Happy Valley and win, and PSU probably doesn't win in Berkeley. Some years, yeah, PSU would go into Berkeley and win. This year? No, they probably wouldn't. Turn it around though, and Cal would almost never win in Happy Valley.
As for Cal going to MSU, right now? Yeah, they'd struggle. They struggled at home last season against MSU. With Cal's stellar record of sucking fat rat cock on the road, yeah, I think it's safe to say they'd struggle at Sparty this year.
Struggling doesn't necessarily mean "lose." It means they'd struggle. I differentiate struggling from what they'd do in Happy Valley or The Shoe: lose. End of story.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:16 am
by socal
Van wrote:thoght
Where did 'u' go?
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:18 am
by Van
socal wrote:
Van wrote:thoght
Where did 'u' go?
Too slow, fucker. No visible edit, baby! I caught it and edited it before you called me on it.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:27 am
by Blueblood
Van wrote:
As for Cal going to MSU, right now? Yeah, they'd struggle. They struggled at home last season against MSU.
Huh???
Did you even watch the game ????????
Vannie, watch a game once in awhile other than $C.
I think Mr. Magoo would back me on this one... Cal's only struggle in this game was Nate Longshore giving MSU 14 points in less than 30 seconds. This at the same time that Kevin Riley had moved the team down inside the 20 and was about to give Cal another 7 points before Nate came in and almost threw another pic 6 if it weren't Jet Blue's speed to run down the MSU db.
Vannie, you are going for less than 10% on all your posts recently. You need to stop spamming and learn more about the sport.
Mr. Magoo wrote:
- First off, let me say Cal's offensive line is the real deal. So is Riley and so is Best. That's a very talented offensive unit they've got there. Even scarier, Cal subs in their backup RB late in the game and dude breaks it for an 80 yard TD on his first collegiate possession. That was a heartbreaker. Just sick.
Mr. Magoo wrote:Tedford brings Longshore in for two series' and it results in two INTs (one for a TD). You could say Longshore single handedly kept MSU in the first half.
Mr. Magoo wrote:
- I talked my share of junk, but honestly, I was happy to see MSU have a puncher's chance in this one considering how Cal (seemingly) dominated the game in most phases. They really should've won by a couple of TDs, at least.
Try again, dumbass. I watched the game. Cal gave up 31. They won by one score. They needed to score 14 in the fourth quarter to win, including a score with just over four minutes remaining in the game. They gave up 321 passing yards. They only outgained Michigan St by 65 yards.
Cal fucking struggled to win that game.
Wanna try again, Cupcake?
Wait. I know, Cal would've rolled, except for the biased refs and all their missed holding calls, right?
Regardless, make Cal have to travel out of the PST time zone to play that game and they struggle. Guaranteed.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:56 am
by Van
Btw, if you don't kill both Maryland at home and Minnesota on the road then do the Pac 10 a favor and don't even get on the plane for the return flight. Just stay in Minnesota. Maybe Morris Day could teach you idiots the time.
Oh, and Eastern Washington? Eastern fucking Washington?
California Goddamn Golden Pussies. You vaginas better show up this year.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
by Blueblood
Van wrote:Try again, dumbass. I watched the game. Cal gave up 31. They won by one score. They needed to score 14 in the fourth quarter to win, including a score with just over four minutes remaining in the game. They gave up 321 passing yards. They only outgained Michigan St by 65 yards.
Cal fucking struggled to win that game.
Wanna try again, Cupcake?
Wait. I know, Cal would've rolled, except for the biased refs and all their missed holding calls, right?
Regardless, make Cal have to travel out of the PST time zone to play that game and they struggle. Guaranteed.
You do know you're "mentally ill" ???
Fans of both the teams dispute you... but, "you watched the game and knew " Cal won by a TD.
I think I recall Tejas blowing out $C in the MNC game by a TD and it wasn't even close.
I read the box score on "Google"....
the truth
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:16 am
by Van
Only problem there is USC outgained Texas and they led by 12 with six minutes left, before losing on basically the last real play of the game.
So, ummm, fuck off.
Anyway...
Btw, if you don't kill both Maryland at home and Minnesota on the road then do the Pac 10 a favor and don't even get on the plane for the return flight. Just stay in Minnesota. Maybe Morris Day could teach you idiots the time.
Oh, and Eastern Washington? Eastern fucking Washington?
California Goddamn Golden Pussies. You vaginas better show up this year.
That's all that matters. You pussies better show up big this year. You'd better roll in all your OOC games, you better land a damn BCS bowl game, and you'd better win it. It's time for you sissies to finally pull your own (light) weight.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:27 am
by Blueblood
Van wrote:Only problem there is USC outgained Texas and they led by 12 with six minutes left, before losing on basically the last real play of the game.
So, ummm, fuck off.
You sure you want to there ?????????
Check out the stats on this game.... shit for brains!
And, like usual, USC won, and Cal lost. Nice. You hated it, didn't you? Just hated it.
Think you guys can handle Maryland this time, and maybe Minnesota too? Couldja? Couldja stop crapping on USC with your shitty performances, which end up hurting USC more than they hurt Cal.
That's the only way you're able to hurt USC, innit? You roll over and play dead all season long, fucking up USC's SOS in the process.
Maybe pull your own weight this season? Just this once? Would that be asking too much?
... and we don't PAY our "students" to play football.
Van wrote:Think you guys can handle Maryland this time, and maybe Minnesota too? Couldja? Couldja stop crapping on USC with your shitty performances, which end up hurting USC more than they hurt Cal.
We'll talk when you don't lose 2 outta the last 3 three years to the beavers.
m2 is the truth
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:02 am
by Van
How about we talk now, since USC has beaten Cal five straight, and seven out of eight, on their way to winning the conference every bloody year. Cal's lone win was a triple O.T. clusterfuck.
Is there some particular reason you keep avoiding the most basic question, which is whether you might be able to at least handle your business this one time? Maryland, Minnesota and a BCS bowl game?
One time, can you sack up and not let us down? Yes? No?
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:18 am
by Blueblood
Van wrote:How about we talk now, since USC has beaten Cal five straight, and seven out of eight, on their way to winning the conference every bloody year. Cal's lone win was a triple O.T. clusterfuck.
Is there some particular reason you keep avoiding the most basic question, which is whether you might be able to at least handle your business this one time? Maryland, Minnesota and a BCS bowl game?
One time, can you sack up and not let us down? Yes? No?
Can $C win more than 1 MNC in the last 30 years with out being arrogant ???
At least Cal has this...
the truth
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:36 am
by Van
Bwaaaa! Again, you dodge. Is it Minnesota who scares you so much, or is it Maryland again?
Anyway, do you seriously want to compare Cal hotties to USC hotties??
You're a funny dude, I gotta admit.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:44 am
by Blueblood
Van wrote:
Anyway, do you seriously want to compare Cal hotties to USC hotties??
You're a funny dude, I gotta admit.
Sure.
Show me a slowcal chick that can get into a school like Cal... and it's on !
I win... once again.
You know why ???
m2 is the truth
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:27 am
by SoCalTrjn
A girl from Southern California is Tools answer to why the Bears will once again step on their dick OOC and limp in to conf play 1-2 thus fucking the entire Pacs SOS once again. "We may suck but we can get an occasional good looking girl from Southern California to come to school with all the troglodytes up here"
Hell shes from Newport and as Tool will tell everyone, thats in Los Angeles.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:25 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Van wrote:They're not going to luck into any Orange Bowls against some 9-4 ACC team.
That depends on the year, and the situation. You are aware that the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls all have at least one open pick per year, right? That open pick rotates. This year and next, the Orange Bowl will pick first among those bowls. In other words, for the next two years the Orange Bowl will pick ahead of both the Fiesta and the Sugar Bowls, unless either the Big XII champ (Fiesta) and/or SEC champ (Sugar) wind up in the BCS championship game. The Orange Bowl will still get its selection ahead of the second selection for either of those bowls.
The bigger problem for the Big Ten is that the relative lack of parity within the conference often means that the conference champion is playing in the BCS championship game (where they are often the weaker team, as it turns out). That in turn opens up a bid in the Rose Bowl, which wants to take a Big Ten team to fill the void left by the Big 10 champ.
-PSU becoming a consistent monster, thus making the Big 10 a three team monster, that'd finish the deal. PSU has got to get off the seasonal roller coaster. They need to get back to being the PSU of the '80s, when they were a perennial national title contender.
I know we'll have to agree to disagree on this, but part of this is due to Penn State's decision to join the Big Ten. In so doing, Penn State opened up eastern recruiting to the remaining Big Ten schools. Midwestern recruiting hasn't opened up as much to Penn State in return, though.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:58 pm
by socal
Van wrote:
socal wrote:
Van wrote:thoght
Where did 'u' go?
Too slow, fucker. No visible edit, baby! I caught it and edited it before you called me on it.
If Mgo_GrammarReaper can catch you pre-edit, Van, my cannot socal?
SC is a victim of their own success drawing all of the top shelf talent from around southern California and the country. The rest of the Pac 10 gets seconds.
But be careful what you wish for. The cycle will eventually end. About damned time it did for UCLA. :brad:
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:27 pm
by Van
Yeah, it will eventually end (whenever Pete bails), but when it does end USC won't fall to the depths where UCLA has been residing in recent years. Even during USC's Shit Period they still remained good enough to win the Pac 10, every so often. (Something Cal's never done, during the modern era.) They were still a very competitive team, just about every year.
Nobody was laying the wood to them, 59-0.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:14 am
by The Seer
Van wrote:Yeah, it will eventually end (whenever Pete bails), but when it does end USC won't fall to the depths where UCLA has been residing in recent years. Even during USC's Shit Period they still remained good enough to win the Pac 10, every so often. (Something Cal's never done, during the modern era.) They were still a very competitive team, just about every year.
Nobody was laying the wood to them, 59-0.
How many Pac 10 titles did you win with Hackett? The stench that was Duhrell is slowly dissipating....Ucla will win 8 games this year and have no disasters that was Duhrell recruiting.....
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:24 am
by King Crimson
i've never been a Dorrell fan, having seen his act up close when he OC'd for Neuheisel at CU (and ran a power run game into the ground in favor of Ricky's soft "outsmart em" O).....but i thought he recruited pretty well. No?
i'll repeat my story of seeing UCLA and Karl roll into Boulder and they are running all these Shanahan type pro-sets and formations in warm-ups and CU was terrible that year in the D backfield...and thinking UCLA has these big WR's and is gonna wax the Buffs. once the game starts, UCLA runs the same I formation and the only time they throw the ball down the field, wide open WR's drop the ball. and they never go back to it. CU wins.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:51 am
by Van
The Seer, just to lend a little perspective to this, as bad as USC was during the '80s and '90s (for them) they still went to four Rose Bowls in the 80s and two in the 90's, going 4-2 in those games. They endured their second worst five year stretch in their history, with a still above .500 record of 37-35. Even the abysmal Paul Hackett years saw USC going 19-18 during his three year abortion.
Meanwhile, UCLA went 17-17 during a three year stretch of the '90s. Over the last six seasons UCLA managed to surround their one good 10-2 season in '05 (under Karl Duhrell) with a five year record of 29-34.
Maybe more importantly, it's now been nearly a quarter century (1986) since UCLA won a Rose Bowl, and they've only been in one BCS bowl game, the '99 Rose Bowl, which they lost.
So, basically, they've been Cal, for nearly a quarter century. The only difference is they did make it to two Rose Bowls, in the '90s. UCLA has also won five Rose Bowls since Cal last played in one, which was before m2 was even born.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:14 pm
by Laxplayer
which was before m2 was even born.
He was born? Damn, I was betting on hatched or aborted.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:17 pm
by The Seer
King Crimson wrote:i've never been a Dorrell fan, but i thought he recruited pretty well. No?
Well, if you made 100% commission on the salaries that all the Bruin draftees will earn this year in the league, you would be earning exactly - 0.
nuff said.
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:04 pm
by Laxplayer
Hey, WTF was that....I think a golf ball just flew right by me head....seer, was that you?
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:09 am
by The Seer
Laxplayer wrote:Hey, WTF was that....I think a golf ball just flew right by me head....seer, was that you?
Relax....you still got 9....err....8 lives left....
Re: The Pac 10 vs. the Big 10
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:37 pm
by Laxplayer
8 lives, 9 lives....whatever. Hope you guys had a good time at the tournament last week, and took home some nice gifts.
