SEC vs Big 10

#76
#76
VOLracerx said:
I read a quote by and anonymous AP voter

"OSU is the weakest #1 team in 25 years, they had all summer to prep for Texas and 11 weeks to get ready for Michigan, who else have they beaten?"
Click to expand...

Not sure I would go that far, but I am skeptical as to how good a number 1 they are.
 
#78
#78
That would be awesome if Florida can pull it out. That would mean 4 NC's by 3 different teams in a 10 year span. 4 out of 10 ain't bad....especially with 3 different teams. USC can claim the other 6.:crazy:

But over the last 14 years, 5 NC's with 4 different teams, excluding Auburn's 2 undefeated teams during the span, is great. What other conference can say they did that?
 
#79
#79
Jasongivm6 said:
That would be awesome if Florida can pull it out. That would mean 4 NC's by 3 different teams in a 10 year span. 4 out of 10 ain't bad....especially with 3 different teams. USC can claim the other 6.:crazy:

But over the last 14 years, 5 NC's with 4 different teams, excluding Auburn's 2 undefeated teams during the span, is great. What other conference can say they did that?
Click to expand...
Why does it matter how many teams win the championships? Is the SEC somehow more highly esteemed because their 4 NCs are from 4 different teams, while the Big XII's 5 are from 3?
 
#83
#83
therealUT said:
Why does it matter how many teams win the championships? Is the SEC somehow more highly esteemed because their 4 NCs are from 4 different teams, while the Big XII's 5 are from 3?
Click to expand...

To take the idea and extrapolate it further, yes. If a conference of 12 teams had 12 NC's, 1 by each team over a 20 year period. Then another conference of 12 teams had 12 NC's over, all won by the same team over a 20 year period. Then I would say the conference with numerous different winners was a better conference.
 
#84
#84
VOLracerx said:
I read a quote by and anonymous AP voter

"OSU is the weakest #1 team in 25 years, they had all summer to prep for Texas and 11 weeks to get ready for Michigan, who else have they beaten?"
Click to expand...
i tend to agree with comment as it relates to the big 10 conf. schedule they played...keep in mind they didn't play Wisconsin, who tied for 2nd in the league, but they did beat both TX and Michigan. the Iowa game proved to be all hype, Penn state isn't absolutely awful, but they are average at best.

but at the end of the day, they pretty much killed everyone on their schedule, which is what good teams do to lesser teams. it wasn't like they were eeking out wins 10-7.
 
#85
#85
I know that since atleast 1979 (could be longer) that every team from the SEC that has played in a National Championship game has won. I know that you don't have to win the Big 12 to play in a National Championship.
 
#86
#86
allvol123 said:
To take the idea and extrapolate it further, yes. If a conference of 12 teams had 12 NC's, 1 by each team over a 20 year period. Then another conference of 12 teams had 12 NC's over, all won by the same team over a 20 year period. Then I would say the conference with numerous different winners was a better conference.
Click to expand...
So, if the case does not belong to one of those extremes, then your argument will still be the same? Nice argument tactic, however, if we want to use extremes we can throw all sorts of situations into the mix. A conference with multiple teams winning national championships certainly leads one to believe there is ample parity in said conference. However, parity is not a synonym for strength. If two teams from conferences with great parity, both went undefeated in their conference, faced no worthy OOC opponents, and met in the title game, then does that make those two conferences strong? I do not believe so.

When the SEC starts scheduling and beating quality OOC opponents on a regular basis, then when they beat each other up in conference play it will mean something. Until then, it just means there is great parity in the SEC, not necessarily great strength.
 
#87
#87
SEC is by far the deepest most competetive conference, but we tend to struggle with big 12 opponents more than any other conference because of the style of play and match ups. SEC vs Big 10 is IMO dominated by the SEC in history. however the sec vs the big 12 is about even. TOSU is 0-7 vs the SEC. just ask Eddie George how that feels. Michigan struggles with top level SEC talent every time they play. The Big 12 is mush more competetive normally excluding this year.:twocents:
 
#88
#88
Jasongivm6 said:
I know that since atleast 1979 (could be longer) that every team from the SEC that has played in a National Championship game has won. I know that you don't have to win the Big 12 to play in a National Championship.
Click to expand...
What?!? Except of course for that thrashing that UT suffered at the hands of Nebraska, circa 1997...
 
#89
#89
therealUT said:
Why does it matter how many teams win the championships? Is the SEC somehow more highly esteemed because their 4 NCs are from 4 different teams, while the Big XII's 5 are from 3?
Click to expand...
it speaks to the competiton level that a conference has within itself.

for example:
during FSU's run of like 12 straight ACC titles and two national titles, did you really think that FSU could have accomplished all that if htey had played in another conf? let me rephrase, how much respect did you have for the conf. schedule they had to play...forget about speculating what they would have done in another league. What had the other teams in that conf done except line up for an FSU buffet?

add to that, what were FSU's biggest games year in year out during that run? NCSU? no. UNC? no. UVA? no.

their biggest games were Miami and FSU...two ooc opponents. everyone else in the ACC was a distant 3rd...

not every conf. is that extreme, but when we, the SEC, have 6 different teams that have in fact competed for and won the conf. and 4 different teams that have competed for and won National titles, it can be reasonably determined that there are multiple teams in that conference that are very good and perfectly capable of winning the conf. and compete for a NT in any given year. no one can be taken lightly, especialy the top 6-8 teams.

and year in and year out, that is the case. and year in and year out that is why the SEC's upper echilon teams beat each other up. Florida won the league this year and is playing for a national title. this in a league that include 1 team that beat them and two others that came with in 3 points of beating them.

to me, i think that says more about the competition that Florida played this year than that of Mich/OSU.

besides Mich/OSU playing each other who else in their conference did they play that offered up so much as a hiccup on the schedule? no one.

if you want to compare ooc schedules fine, like i said i agree with you...but i say compare the conf. schedules. in that comparison, the SEC wins in a landslide, especially considering you will play 8 conf. games a year compared to 4 ooc games. which ones really matter at the end of the day? the ooc games only matter if you actually have a big time ooc team to play. the conf games matter no matter what. and that is why the SEC is better than the rest. other conferences sort of have to rely on strong ooc scheduling to gain respect.
 
#90
#90
therealUT said:
So, if the case does not belong to one of those extremes, then your argument will still be the same? Nice argument tactic, however, if we want to use extremes we can throw all sorts of situations into the mix. A conference with multiple teams winning national championships certainly leads one to believe there is ample parity in said conference. However, parity is not a synonym for strength. If two teams from conferences with great parity, both went undefeated in their conference, faced no worthy OOC opponents, and met in the title game, then does that make those two conferences strong? I do not believe so.

When the SEC starts scheduling and beating quality OOC opponents on a regular basis, then when they beat each other up in conference play it will mean something. Until then, it just means there is great parity in the SEC, not necessarily great strength.
Click to expand...

Yes, my argument would be the same. I was not trying to fool or trick anyone with the "extremes", just using it to show greater number of teams winning NC's from a conference, to me does indicate a greater conference. If one conference has 4 and the other has 3, is there a huge difference? No, but there is some difference. I don't think there are huge gaps no matter who you argue for, between the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 or Pac 10. But I do rank the SEC as the toughest conference with one factor being NC's. Not total number, as one team can potentially dominate, such as USC. But number of different teams winning one. In the past 15 years - Bammer, UT, UF, LSU have NC's with Auburn having 2 undefeated seasons. This idea of not facing worthy opponents is BS. UF cannot dictate how good of a team FSU is going to be anymore than Michigan can guarantee how good of a team ND is going to be. Historically, they would both be considered good OOC teams. USC played a good OOC schedule this year. Most teams from ALL conferences, play one good OOC at most and then a bunch of average to lousy ones. This is not some syndrome only affecting SEC teams.
 
#92
#92
therealUT said:
So, if the case does not belong to one of those extremes, then your argument will still be the same? Nice argument tactic, however, if we want to use extremes we can throw all sorts of situations into the mix. A conference with multiple teams winning national championships certainly leads one to believe there is ample parity in said conference. However, parity is not a synonym for strength. If two teams from conferences with great parity, both went undefeated in their conference, faced no worthy OOC opponents, and met in the title game, then does that make those two conferences strong? I do not believe so.

When the SEC starts scheduling and beating quality OOC opponents on a regular basis, then when they beat each other up in conference play it will mean something. Until then, it just means there is great parity in the SEC, not necessarily great strength.
Click to expand...
so let's get to brass tacs...rank the conferences in your opinion. cause it will be interesting to see who you think is better than the SEC. And it will also be interesting to see what happens this bowl sesaon.

several key matchups that will be worht noting:
ND/LSU
TN/PSU
FL/OSU
ARK/Wisc
Aub/Neb

all fairly comparable teams...record wise. Right now, i think the SEC wins 4 of those games.
 
#93
#93
jakez4ut said:
or the thrashing that Florida got from that same Neb team in 95....
Click to expand...


I forgot about the Florida-Nebraska game. I was too busy drinking Hurricanes in Orlando. The 1998 UT-Nebraska game would have been the NC if Washington State would've beaten Michigan.
 
#94
#94
Jasongivm6 said:
I forgot about the Florida-Nebraska game. I was too busy drinking Hurricanes in Orlando. The 1998 UT-Nebraska game would have been the NC if Washington State would've beaten Michigan.
Click to expand...
turns out it was anyway, seeing as Neb got it one poll and Michigan got it in another....

but you're right...for us to have won it...Wazzu needed to win along with us.
 
#95
#95
jakez4ut said:
turns out it was anyway, seeing as Neb got it one poll and Michigan got it in another....

but you're right...for us to have won it...Wazzu needed to win along with us.
Click to expand...


I was at the Orange Bowl. Nebraska fans are some of the best. The way they manhandled our D, I am kind of bias in saying they would've beaten Michigan that year, too.
 
#96
#96
Jasongivm6 said:
I was at the Orange Bowl. Nebraska fans are some of the best. The way they manhandled our D, I am kind of bias in saying they would've beaten Michigan that year, too.
Click to expand...
too bad those teams weren't around a year later...in the BCS they'd of played each other...but i agree...Neb was good, and it wasn't like we sucked.
 
#100
#100
I live in Big Ten country and graduated from IU. All my friends are Big Ten believers in every sport. More than anything basketball.

The problem with football is that there can't be a Big Ten/SEC Challenge like the Big Ten/ACC Challenge in basketball that basically makes all the Big Ten gurus go mum for a week.

Here's the thing with Big Ten fans is the fact that they hang their hat on 2-3 teams at the top and argue that they make the conference the best. If you go down the line in the conferences the SEC is head and shoulders above the Big Ten which has already been said.

If you put 1-11 from each conference up against each other I have a hard time believing that the Big Ten wins 6 of those games on any given year.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top