A little fuel to the "Pac-10 vs. everyone else" fire

[FREE EARL]

How many times do I have to correct you on the same points?

I, along with Sagarin himself, prefer his Predictor rating. Which is not used in the BCS system.

You talking about the rankings that led you to claim Stanford deserved to be the #1 ranked team in the nation, and that Wisconsin wasn't playing well? Are those the predictor ratings you're referring to?

 

[OHvol40]

Winning is not flawed. However, your argument is not based on winning. It's based on a system that includes human votes, bowl tie-ins, scheduling patterns of varying degrees of difficulty and multiple variably flawed computer formulas. Additionally, I've already demonstrated how one team making the NC game is not a reflection of over-all conference strength.

Deserving Pac-10 team into NC game? 2001 for example.

Soooooo Oregon's loss to that awful Stanford team was not as bad as Nebraska's loss to a much better Colorado team?..... OK. :good!:

You can make up all kinds of mythical rankings and hypothesizes, but you have to win in the system you're in now (BCS).

Just win all of your games, and all the rest takes care of itself. This is something the SEC has done consistently, while the majority of the PAC 10 has not.

While you are quick to point out that "most football fans" agree that the BCS is flawed, you fail to recognize that "most football fans" also recognize that the SEC is clearly the most dominate conference in college football. If you are going to speak in generalities, it actually works against your argument.

Poll: Has the Pac-10 become 2010's alpha conference?
Posted by John Taylor on September 9, 2010, 6:11 AM EST

NBC Sports.com contributor Michael Ventre makes a case for the Pac-10 being the best conference in the country because of its quality quarterbacks and coaches.

Do you share his view? Make your opinion heard in the vote below.

Thank you for voting!
ACC 3.26% (67 votes)

Big East 1.66% (34 votes)

Big Ten 20.26% (416 votes)

Big 12 7.55% (155 votes)

Pac-10 22.45% (461 votes)

SEC 44.81% (920 votes)


Total Votes: 2,053

So, chief, you are obviously in the minority, and rightfully so. I am no longer going to sit here and try to pound into your head what most people can see is clearly the truth.

So good day, and good luck against the 5th different SEC program to go to the BCS NC game. Maybe you will be the "chosen one" to break the SEC National Championship streak and get the PAC 10 their 2nd BCS NC trophy. :hi:

 

[DarthVisor]

No, there IS a "best meter", even if you choose not to accept it (and try to substitute your own). Its called winning. Win your games against quality opponents and you will get a chance to play in the most meaningful game of the year. Win that game and you are the best in college football that year. That is the formula we have now.

Multiple SEC programs (not just one) have been able to accomplish this since the BCS was created. They have all done so while having to go through the SEC Championship game. (which, as Tennessee fans know, can knock a team out of contention)

This championship game negates any argument from a PAC 10 schedule point-of-view. Period.

So, the fact that 4 (possibly 5) different SEC teams have run this gauntlet and defeated their national championship opponent does, in fact, prove without a doubt that the SEC as a WHOLE CONFERENCE has dominated college football during the BCS era in a way that no other conference has been able to approach.

This is not some made up formula, this is not theory, this is fact. We will see how much this changes/doesn't change over the next several years.

The SEC has won a good portion of the BCS Championships, yes, but this alone does not make the SEC the toughest conference. The BCS is very flawed. The fact that a team can lose its very last game of the season 35-7 and still make the BCS NC game is a testament to how poor the system we have is.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[FREE EARL]

The SEC has won a good portion of the BCS Championships, yes, but this alone does not make the SEC the toughest conference. The BCS is very flawed. The fact that a team can lose its very last game of the season 35-7 and still make the BCS NC game is a testament to how poor the system we have is.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This argument always baffles me. The SEC wasn't the catalyst of the BCS, they merely dominate it. It's the same system everyone else plays under. It's equal opportunity.

 

[ochocinco]

When the Pac10 wins 4 straight BCS championship games, I'll be ready to have this debate.

end of discussion

 

[DarthVisor]

This argument always baffles me. The SEC weren't the creators of the BCS, they simply dominate it. It's the same system everyone else plays under. It's equal opportunity.

Agreed. Its just my humble opinion that simply because the SEC had made it to, and won, a good number of the BCS NC games does not mean that the SEC has always had the toughest conference. I think the SEC usually has the toughest conference, but I think using the BCS NC as evidence of this is kind of flawed. Just my opinion.

As to the Pac-10-SEC debate...I believe the SEC is usually the better conference.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Canard]

Soooooo Oregon's loss to that awful Stanford team was not as bad as Nebraska's loss to a much better Colorado team?..... OK. :good!:

You can make up all kinds of mythical rankings and hypothesizes, but you have to win in the system you're in now (BCS).

Just win all of your games, and all the rest takes care of itself. This is something the SEC has done consistently, while the majority of the PAC 10 has not.

While you are quick to point out that "most football fans" agree that the BCS is flawed, you fail to recognize that "most football fans" also recognize that the SEC is clearly the most dominate conference in college football. If you are going to speak in generalities, it actually works against your argument.




So, chief, you are obviously in the minority, and rightfully so. I am no longer going to sit here and try to pound into your head what most people can see is clearly the truth.

So good day, and good luck against the 5th different SEC program to go to the BCS NC game. Maybe you will be the "chosen one" to break the SEC National Championship streak and get the PAC 10 their 2nd BCS NC trophy. :hi:

2001's Stanford squad was a 9-3 bowl team to whom Oregon lost by a TD.

2001 Nebraska didn't even win the BXII North, getting smoked by CU 62-36.

Of course, CU was dumped by Oregon in the Fiesta 38-16.

The current system, though it has placed Oregon in the MNC this year, totally sucks ass and nothing definitive about the relative merits of either teams or conferences will be proven until there is a frickin' play-off in place.

 

[FREE EARL]

2001's Stanford squad was a 9-3 bowl team to whom Oregon lost by a TD.

2001 Nebraska didn't even win the BXII North, getting smoked by CU 62-36.

Of course, CU was dumped by Oregon in the Fiesta 38-16.

The current system, though it has placed Oregon in the MNC this year, totally sucks ass and nothing definitive about the relative merits of either teams or conferences will be proven until there is a frickin' play-off in place.

The former system sucked ass. And there will be no implementation of a playoff system any time in the near future. Though it sucks, this is what we have, and this is the system dominated by the SEC.

By the way, the BCS formula was altered after 2004.

 

[Canard]

The former system sucked ass. And there will be no implementation of a playoff system any time in the near future. Though it sucks, this is what we have, and this is the system dominated by the SEC.

By the way, the BCS formula was altered after 2004.

Was it? What was Les Miles lobbying about a few weeks ago then when he knew he was locked out of the SECCG?

On some level I do find it amusing that a system that is set up to reward the fact that most of the human voters are in the eastern and central time zones and in turn serves to send teams from the eastern and central time zones to the Really Big Game is profound evidence of anything--since those self-same interests want nothing to do with a play-off.

"It is what it is" is a cop out.

 

[OHvol40]

2001's Stanford squad was a 9-3 bowl team to whom Oregon lost by a TD.

2001 Nebraska didn't even win the BXII North, getting smoked by CU 62-36.

Of course, CU was dumped by Oregon in the Fiesta 38-16.

The current system, though it has placed Oregon in the MNC this year, totally sucks ass and nothing definitive about the relative merits of either teams or conferences will be proven until there is a frickin' play-off in place.

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Nebraska was the right choice IMO.

 

[Canard]

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Nebraska was the right choice IMO.

That's ludicrous. That they were the "best one loss team" was anything but clear.

The "best" of anything doesn't get ***** slapped by nearly thirty points.

 

[DarthVisor]

That's ludicrous. That they were the "best one loss team" was anything but clear.

The "best" of anything doesn't get ***** slapped by nearly thirty points.

+1
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OHvol40]

Was it? What was Les Miles lobbying about a few weeks ago then when he knew he was locked out of the SECCG?

On some level I do find it amusing that a system that is set up to reward the fact that most of the human voters are in the eastern and central time zones and in turn serves to send teams from the eastern and central time zones to the Really Big Game is profound evidence of anything--since those self-same interests want nothing to do with a play-off.

"It is what it is" is a cop out.

This is a cop out as well. I live in the east, yet I saw more pac 10 football than ACC, Big East, Big 12.......

The real cop out is blaming the system. If you win all of your games in any of these big conferences, chances are you will be in the NC game..... if your team/conference has struggled to do so, then it is just time to look in the mirror rather than come up with a conspiracy theory.

 

[FREE EARL]

Was it? What was Les Miles lobbying about a few weeks ago then when he knew he was locked out of the SECCG?

On some level I do find it amusing that a system that is set up to reward the fact that most of the human voters are in the eastern and central time zones and in turn serves to send teams from the eastern and central time zones to the Really Big Game is profound evidence of anything--since those self-same interests want nothing to do with a play-off.

"It is what it is" is a cop out.

Which is exactly why the SEC and ACC were all for a "plus 1", or something of the sort after the 2008 season, and the Pac-10, Big XII, and Big X, were against it?

And outside of the USC, the Pac-10 hasn't produced a team worthy of a BCS title bid.(Before this season of course). The conference as a whole is nothing to write home about.

 

[Canard]

Which is exactly why the SEC and ACC were all for a "plus 1", or something of the sort after the 2008 season, and the Pac-10, Big XII, and Big X, were against it?

And outside of the USC, the Pac-10 hasn't produced a team worthy of a BCS title bid.(Before this season of course). The conference as a whole is nothing to write home about.

The Pac-10's +1 opposition is just another bit of former Commissioner Tom Hansen's dinosaur legacy.

Oregon was worthy of a title game appearance over Nebraska in 2001.

In 2005 our only regular loss was to BCSNCG participant USC and we couldn't even get a sniff for the friggin' Fiesta Bowl.

This system is corrupt to its core.

 

[wheaton4prez]

You talking about the rankings that led you to claim Stanford deserved to be the #1 ranked team in the nation, and that Wisconsin wasn't playing well? Are those the predictor ratings you're referring to?

Yes. You've asked this question about 20 times and I've answered it the same every time. Seriously, do you go to bed at night thinking about this?

Just win all of your games, and all the rest takes care of itself. This is something the SEC has done consistently, while the majority of the PAC 10 has not.

It's easier to do when you play 8 home games and 4 cupcakes. That is an example of why your premise is flawed.

While you are quick to point out that "most football fans" agree that the BCS is flawed, you fail to recognize that "most football fans" also recognize that the SEC is clearly the most dominate conference in college football. If you are going to speak in generalities, it actually works against your argument.

Actually, this point works in my favor. Since the results are dictated by human votes, the influence of public perception (whether it's accurate or not) cannot be eliminated from the equation.

Agreed. Its just my humble opinion that simply because the SEC had made it to, and won, a good number of the BCS NC games does not mean that the SEC has always had the toughest conference. I think the SEC usually has the toughest conference, but I think using the BCS NC as evidence of this is kind of flawed. Just my opinion.

And a well thought out opinion it is.

Not sure why some SEC fans aren't comfortable with simply having an opinion.

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Nebraska was the right choice IMO.

I bet that if this subject came up before you joined in on this thread, you wouldn't have blinked twice before agreeing with someone that Oregon got screwed that year.

 

[OHvol40]

Yes. You've asked this question about 20 times and I've answered it the same every time. Seriously, do you go to bed at night thinking about this?



It's easier to do when you play 8 home games and 4 cupcakes. That is an example of why your premise is flawed.



Actually, this point works in my favor. Since the results are dictated by human votes, the influence of public perception (whether it's accurate or not) cannot be eliminated from the equation.



And a well thought out opinion it is.

Not sure why some SEC fans aren't comfortable with simply having an opinion.



I bet that if this subject came up before you joined in on this thread, you wouldn't have blinked twice before agreeing with someone that Oregon got screwed that year.

This stance is crap, you just sound like someone making up excuses for your conference's shortcomings. For example, you had 6 home games while UT had 7. Hardly a big discrepancy.

Also, you played two cupcakes while having 12 total games.... on the other hand your opponent in the BCS NCG had to go through the rigors of the SEC CG. This means they played one more game than Oregon, and had one more chance to lose against one more quality opponent. This means your opponent's schedule was unquestionably more difficult than yours.

Auburn played almost 10% more football this season than Oregon.

 

[DarthVisor]

Winning is not flawed. However, your argument is not based on winning. It's based on a system that includes human votes, bowl tie-ins, scheduling patterns of varying degrees of difficulty and multiple variably flawed computer formulas. Additionally, I've already demonstrated how one team making the NC game is not a reflection of over-all conference strength.

Deserving Pac-10 team into NC game? 2001 for example.

Don't be silly. Clearly, the Big East was the toughest conference in 2001. Miami did win the BCS NC that year, thus, making the Big East the toughest conference. Facts are facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[DarthVisor]

Winning is not flawed. However, your argument is not based on winning. It's based on a system that includes human votes, bowl tie-ins, scheduling patterns of varying degrees of difficulty and multiple variably flawed computer formulas. Additionally, I've already demonstrated how one team making the NC game is not a reflection of over-all conference strength.

Deserving Pac-10 team into NC game? 2001 for example.

Don't be silly. Clearly, the Big East was the toughest conference in 2001. Miami did win the BCS NC that year, thus, making the Big East the toughest conference. Facts are facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[SEC Nightmare]

Don't be silly. Clearly, the Big East was the toughest conference in 2001. Miami did win the BCS NC that year, thus, making the Big East the toughest conference. Facts are facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So if Oregon wins, the Pac 10 is the tougest conference? If Boise State leaped Oregon and won the BCS title that would make the WAC the toughest confernce?

 

[wheaton4prez]

This stance is crap, you just sound like someone making up excuses for your conference's shortcomings. For example, you had 6 home games while UT had 7. Hardly a big discrepancy.

Also, you played two cupcakes while having 12 total games.... on the other hand your opponent in the BCS NCG had to go through the rigors of the SEC CG. This means they played one more game than Oregon, and had one more chance to lose against one more quality opponent. This means your opponent's schedule was unquestionably more difficult than yours.

Auburn played almost 10% more football this season than Oregon.

Auburn played 8 home games and 4 cupcakes. South Carolina, the "rigor" played 7 home games and 4 cupcakes. They lost 3 of 5 games against quality opponents. Not much of a rigor, imo. If Auburn had to play Stanford or even an Alabama re-match, they might not be going to the NC game.

I think that it's absolutely questionable that their schedule was more difficult than Oregon's.

 

[FREE EARL]

Auburn played 8 home games and 4 cupcakes. South Carolina, the "rigor" played 7 home games and 4 cupcakes. They lost 3 of 5 games against quality opponents. Not much of a rigor, imo. If Auburn had to play Stanford or even an Alabama re-match, they might not be going to the NC game.

I think that it's absolutely questionable that their schedule was more difficult than Oregon's.

I don't even think you believe some of the retarded sh!t you post. But I'm sure, tomorrow you'll have some weak explanation attempting to convince us that playing 12 games, 1 game against ranked opposition, and 4 games against bowl teams is the equivalent or better to playing 13 games, 6 games against ranked opposition, and 9 games against bowl teams.

You'll say "well Auburn played 8 home games!". And my response will be: "You're correct, but that has no relevance to the quality of opposition. Furthermore, they played one more game than Oregon".

You'll say, "They played 4 cupcakes!". And my response will be: By what measure? You're labeling Clemson as a cupcake, another bowl team, who's accomplished what more than half the Pac-10 couldn't. Bowl eligibility. So has Oregon played against 8 cupcakes? Because at the very least, Clemson is as good as 8 of the teams on Oregon's schedule.

And they you'll continue on with your hypotheticals, which for some reason, you believe have merit. "If Auburn had to play Stanford, they might not be undefeated!". And my response will be: Perhaps you're right. If Auburn were forced to play yet another bowl bound, ranked team; They may not be undefeated. But on the other hand, If Stanford would have been forced to play any ranked team at all, they wouldn't be going to a BCS bowl. Or if Oregon were forced to play Stanford or Cal again(Yes, pathetic Cal), then they perhaps wouldn't be undefeated. Yay for hypotheticals.

And then you'll surprise us all, and come up with something even more retarded to post. Yippie.

 

[DarthVisor]

So if Oregon wins, the Pac 10 is the tougest conference? If Boise State leaped Oregon and won the BCS title that would make the WAC the toughest confernce?

It was sarcasm....
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MaehlMan]

Auburn played 8 home games and 4 cupcakes. South Carolina, the "rigor" played 7 home games and 4 cupcakes. They lost 3 of 5 games against quality opponents. Not much of a rigor, imo. If Auburn had to play Stanford or even an Alabama re-match, they might not be going to the NC game.

I think that it's absolutely questionable that their schedule was more difficult than Oregon's.

No, no it isn't.

 

[ThatVolGuy]

No, no it isn't.

At this point, it's clear that wheaton values being a contrarian more than making sense.