USC and the Pac-10

[TNFanBornandRaised]

Am I the only one that just flat out dispises USC. It's bad enough they don't consistantly play anyone and they still are ranked #1. While they are extremely talented, how good would they be in the SEC? The Big 12(South), ACC, any of the big conferences and this team would lose 2-3 games a year. I may be wrong and this is my opinion but wouldnt we be in the title game every year if we we're in the Crap-10? I for one am glad that when we won the title that we went through a very tough SEC just to win that title. USC somehow held on to the top spot even though AUBURN won the SEC against harder opponents beating us 2 beating good legitimate teams. In other words, if TENNESSEE went undefeated this year in the SEC, we wouldn't even have a shot at the title. Im not positive but the hardest game outside the Championship USC ever plays is Cal? If Corso and Herbstreet would quit plugging Leinhart, Bush and Peterson, White. Another SEC team would have had a shot. (thanks Jason Respert you da man :bow: ) Sorry to blow up and hate on USC and the Pac-10 but do I have any ground to stand on or am I just full of hot air? I'm so ready for a playoff!!!!!!!

 

[milohimself]

No. I think USC is still the best team in football. I think that this next year, it would be a safe bet to say they would go undefeated wherever they play.

But there has been this continuing argument on this board about conference strength. Questioning USC because they play in the Pac-10. I don't think that there's any definitive way to prove the strength or weakness of any conference until it is all said and done. And even then, it's only partially definitive because the only gauge is interconference records. I know I beat the Oregon State at LSU game to death, but I think it raises a great point. The fourth best team in the Pac-10, a conference that's supposed to be weak, beat (for all intents and purposes) the third-highest ranked team in the SEC, a conference that is presumably much stronger than the Pac-10. This would imply that the Pac-10 is stronger than the SEC, but nobody makes that arguement. I wouldn't even make that arguement. It's just in the way that the two play-styles of the conferences interact.

The fact is that there is no way you can tell if a conference is stronger or weaker (between the major ones). There are just different styles of play. Each of the coaches in each conference adjust their game plan according to other teams in that conference. For example, the Pac-10 is loaded down with pass-heavy teams (Oregon State, Arizona State), so the pass defense of other teams in the conference is focused on instead of the line. The Big XII has many schools that excell in running the ball (Texas, Oklahoma), so Big XII school's run defenses are strong. It continues through all conferences. And you can't tell which conference comes away with the toughest landscape until the dust has settled, at which point you can't do anything about it.

So, to answer your question, I believe it naive to argue which conferences are stronger than others as there is no way to tell until the end of the day.

Also, as for the matter of Auburn not making the Orange Bowl which you didn't directly mention but were clearly referencing to, Auburn's exclusion from Miami was 100% pure bad luck this year. Three undefeated teams from three different conferences is a very rare occurence. The Big XII was supposed to be the top-dog conference this year because of the South's talent (which turned out to be a bust), so for Oklahoma to do such a thing more than likely looked far more impressive than Auburn. It also came down to the big games. Auburn squeaked one by LSU. They played a truly terrible half of ball against Bama in the Iron Bowl. They had narrower-than-it-looks ten point victory over Tennessee in the SEC championship. At the same time, Oklahoma kept Texas, who had possibly the best running game in the country, from scoring a single point. They also held Colorado to less than fifty yards of total offense in the Big XII championship. I personally believe it should have been Auburn in the Orange Bowl, but I also intially believed it should have been Oklahoma. It all just goes back to the fact that you just can't tell. Each conference changes from year to year based on coaching, talent and a million other variables.

Those are my two extremely large pennies.

 

[Volgolfer]

I think USC plays Arkansas next year.

With us playing Cal in 2006/7 we should get a barometer on the Pac-10.

All I can say is give us a shot at them next year....... epper:

 

[Vol67]

Milo I'm gonna get picky here but by what you just said UT would not have made the 98 NCAA championship game if close wins over ranked opponents is bad. By the way just who the hell is Colorado, nothing but a has been! The first time Auburn and UT played Auburn scorched UT at UT. If nothing else the 2nd win over UT should count more since it is extremely difficult and nearly impossible to beat a team 2 in the same season in the SEC or anywhere else for that matter.
The only respectable opponent USC had in the Pac 10 was Cal and they should have lost that one.

 

[GVF]

Milo has a lot of good points there, as well as some good counter points and opinions from the others. During the season, I believe conference strength is more subjective. As a conference, we were basically .500 in the bowls. So, how does that measure up? Depends on how you look at it. Historically, I believe the SEC is the strongest conference. I think that is why you find more NC's from outside the conference.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by TNVOLS1@Jan 27, 2005 4:43 AM
Milo I'm gonna get picky here but by what you just said UT would not have made the 98 NCAA championship game if close wins over ranked opponents is bad. By the way just who the hell is Colorado, nothing but a has been! The first time Auburn and UT played Auburn scorched UT at UT. If nothing else the 2nd win over UT should count more since it is extremely difficult and nearly impossible to beat a team 2 in the same season in the SEC or anywhere else for that matter.
The only respectable opponent USC had in the Pac 10 was Cal and they should have lost that one.

On the point of Colorado, I'll repeat, they were held to under fifty yards of total offense. I know they are a has-been school, and all of the Big XII North sucked... But LESS THAN FIFTY YARDS IN A WHOLE GAME. Doing that to any D-IA school is flat-out incredible, no matter how you slice it.

Regarding USC's win over California, I think it shows strength in USC's abilities and coaching that they can win even in spite of three quarters and some odd minutes of Aaron Rodgers completing 100% of his passes. Also, in case you forgot, Arizona State and Oregon State are good teams as well. The Sun Devils have a pretty amazing passing offense, which USC held to just seven points. The Beavers finished top 25 in the computer rankings.

Regarding close wins over ranked opponnents. Undefeated is undefeated. It's something truly amazing for a team to pull that off. But the fact that Oklahoma and USC were able to do it in the same year as Auburn, where USC is a defending national champion and Oklahoma is getting crazy pimped by ESPN is pretty much just bad luck. Don't get me wrong, I wanted Auburn to go to South Florida. I really did. But this year eventually just descended into "Who looks undefeated the best." The issue of percieved conference strength comes strongly into play, as well. The Big XII South was supposedly the conference to beat, and Oklahoma beat every team there, including a shutout of Texas who scored at will in every other one of their games. That's just plum unlucky.

Historically, I'd think it a safe bet that teams from y'alls neck of the woods are probably the best. Bama dominated for quite a long time, Tennessee has done very well historically as well. Also more recent teams such as Florida. But, historical strength has little, if anything, to do with how strong you are right now.

 

[TNFanBornandRaised]

PLAYOFF!!!!!! Until we get those money loving NCAA commishes off that board we'll never be happy......the BCS is a joke, its nothing but a ploy for us to get more interested in the championship.....We'll never be happy until we get an 8 or 16 team playoff

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jan 27, 2005 1:29 AM
No. I think USC is still the best team in football. I think that this next year, it would be a safe bet to say they would go undefeated wherever they play.

But there has been this continuing argument on this board about conference strength. Questioning USC because they play in the Pac-10. I don't think that there's any definitive way to prove the strength or weakness of any conference until it is all said and done. And even then, it's only partially definitive because the only gauge is interconference records. I know I beat the Oregon State at LSU game to death, but I think it raises a great point. The fourth best team in the Pac-10, a conference that's supposed to be weak, beat (for all intents and purposes) the third-highest ranked team in the SEC, a conference that is presumably much stronger than the Pac-10. This would imply that the Pac-10 is stronger than the SEC, but nobody makes that arguement. I wouldn't even make that arguement. It's just in the way that the two play-styles of the conferences interact.

The fact is that there is no way you can tell if a conference is stronger or weaker (between the major ones). There are just different styles of play. Each of the coaches in each conference adjust their game plan according to other teams in that conference. For example, the Pac-10 is loaded down with pass-heavy teams (Oregon State, Arizona State), so the pass defense of other teams in the conference is focused on instead of the line. The Big XII has many schools that excell in running the ball (Texas, Oklahoma), so Big XII school's run defenses are strong. It continues through all conferences. And you can't tell which conference comes away with the toughest landscape until the dust has settled, at which point you can't do anything about it.

So, to answer your question, I believe it naive to argue which conferences are stronger than others as there is no way to tell until the end of the day.

Also, as for the matter of Auburn not making the Orange Bowl which you didn't directly mention but were clearly referencing to, Auburn's exclusion from Miami was 100% pure bad luck this year. Three undefeated teams from three different conferences is a very rare occurence. The Big XII was supposed to be the top-dog conference this year because of the South's talent (which turned out to be a bust), so for Oklahoma to do such a thing more than likely looked far more impressive than Auburn. It also came down to the big games. Auburn squeaked one by LSU. They played a truly terrible half of ball against Bama in the Iron Bowl. They had narrower-than-it-looks ten point victory over Tennessee in the SEC championship. At the same time, Oklahoma kept Texas, who had possibly the best running game in the country, from scoring a single point. They also held Colorado to less than fifty yards of total offense in the Big XII championship. I personally believe it should have been Auburn in the Orange Bowl, but I also intially believed it should have been Oklahoma. It all just goes back to the fact that you just can't tell. Each conference changes from year to year based on coaching, talent and a million other variables.

Those are my two extremely large pennies.

In my opinion, the best way to guage a conference's strength is to analyze how many teams are ranked in the final AP polls each year. It gives you a pretty good idea of how they performed per the media guys opinions, and the only poll that really matters is the final one which takes into account OOC games played in the bowls.

Then, for further evaluation, you can look at the bottom of other polls that rank all 117 teams. It's not science, but it's about as good as we have.

 

[milohimself]

I have a problem with who is determined to those polls in the first place. A good example was, this last year, the Big XII South had what, four or five teams ranked throughout the season? And they ended up pretty much eating it in the bowl games.

Just goes with the main problem I have with polls, that they are based heavily upon how people think teams SHOULD be doing vs. how they ARE doing. Another example of that was us beating Georgia. AP voters "Well... Georgia was supposed to be a BCS team. And that was a flukey win. So we'll keep them ranked high, because they are supposed to be there." That is the best I can explain the voters logic. It's not against any team in particular (even Tennessee), just against crappy preconceptions.

 

[JohnsonCityVol]

I voted NO because the only traditional powerhouses in the PAC 10 are USC and UCLA. The SEC has Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, and LSU. Big XII has Texas, Oklahoma, & Nebraska. Big 11 has Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan.

Since Bama, UCLA, PSU, and Nebraska are just shells of their former selves, that leaves USC all alone in the PAC 10, while there are still multiple teams from the other conferences.

 

[milohimself]

But like I've said, a rotating door of other strong teams that have a really strong run for a few seasons. There may be no perenial powerhouses, but the fact that the Pac-10 consistently will produce strong teams anyhow still counts for something.

 

[Z06Vol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jan 28, 2005 12:23 AM
the fact that the Pac-10 consistently will produce strong teams anyhow still counts for something.

I've seen nothing consistent. Couple years for USC, but we all saw what happened to that "powerhouse" called Cal.

 

[milohimself]

By that reasoning, UT was not a strong team in 2003 because of the loss to Clemson.

 

[Z06Vol]

Tennessee was highly overrated going into the Peach Bowl last year. They might have been a top 17 to 25 team. Cal shouldn't have been in the top 25 this year. Their weak schedule finally caught up with them, I was saying that all year. But if you think Cal's schedule, this year, was as tough as Tennessee's last year, then you really need to put down the crack pipe.

 

[milohimself]

How is it that Tennessee is overrated one year and completely underrated the next? I thought ESPN had it out for the Vols. Just curious.

 

[Vol67]

The '03 Vols played over their heads while the '04 Vols were a much better team that was really overlooked and they got better as the year progressed. The biggest problem was they weren't flashy and they didn't blow people away so the media didn't warm up to them. Anymore to get the media with you it takes flash, big wins and in UT case everyone else to lose.