Florida's Schedule

cawacko said:
Dixie, these teams can/would still be ranked if USC beat them. They obviously wouldn't be ranked as high. Losing to Florida and Alabama doesn't mean an SEC team can't be ranked. LSU is in the Top 10 and they lost to Florida and Alabama. I'm not arguing pro USC I'm arguing pro Pac 10 and it is not conveleuted to say a conference with two less teams but two more ranked teams is better.

And for shits and giggles I'll throw in the Pac 10's 5-0 bowl record from last year however I'm only arguing this year the conference is better.

Edit: And Dix you say not necessarily a Div II opponent but I just showed you every team in your conference but one plays a Div II opponent this year.
Click to expand...

The conference is not better. That is your opinion, and that is all fine and well, we all have an opinion. You are claiming a conference which contains the #1 AND #2 team in the nation (both undefeated), is not as good as the conference who's top team has TWO losses! Your basis for this is something along the lines of... sure Florida is undefeated, but every team they beat has at least one loss! LOLOL!

On the Div II thing, every OOC game is NOT a Div II opponent, in fact, that is NEVER the case in the SEC, as far as I am aware. The closest I know of was Auburn a few years ago, who failed to go to the BCSCG despite being undefeated in the SEC... they played TWO Div. II's that year, and didn't have the strength of schedule. I've not ever heard of an SEC team playing all 4 OCC's against Div. II opponents, and that was the statement you erroneously made. I was just setting the record straight.
 
Dixie said:
The conference is not better. That is your opinion, and that is all fine and well, we all have an opinion. You are claiming a conference which contains the #1 AND #2 team in the nation (both undefeated), is not as good as the conference who's top team has TWO losses! Your basis for this is something along the lines of... sure Florida is undefeated, but every team they beat has at least one loss! LOLOL!

On the Div II thing, every OOC game is NOT a Div II opponent, in fact, that is NEVER the case in the SEC, as far as I am aware. The closest I know of was Auburn a few years ago, who failed to go to the BCSCG despite being undefeated in the SEC... they played TWO Div. II's that year, and didn't have the strength of schedule. I've not ever heard of an SEC team playing all 4 OCC's against Div. II opponents, and that was the statement you erroneously made. I was just setting the record straight.
Click to expand...

Dixie I never said all four OOC games were against Div II teams. I posted each teams schedule and highlighted the Div II games of which each team had one (only one team in the conference didn't).

And because the SEC has two undefeated teams doesn't mean its the better conference it means its top heavy. From top to bottom the Pac 10 is stronger this year. And obviously again you are ignoring the strength of schedule issue.

Because there is no playoff college football is always going to subject itself to this kind of debate but there is truly nothing as myopic as an SEC football fan.
 
cawacko said:
Some stud conerback from Southern Cali who 'SC wanted just verbally declared today to Florida. Had a big discussion on the board about California kids in the Rivals Top 100 over the past five, six years who left California and how they turned out. A couple of good ones but not a lot of success on the list. One of the monitors on the site put it this way...


Schools in these college towns, especially the South, love homegrown kids. If you're local, the boosters and alumni will push for you. The more backwater it gets, the more home cooking is an advantage. Kids from Southern California are forward-thinking and open minded. You have to be. This region is incredibly diverse and the pace of life is fast. However, kids are a bit naive and think every part of the country is like that. People in Los Angeles don't care where you're from because everyone in L.A. is from somewhere. It's not like that in some of these small college towns.
Click to expand...

I grew up in Tuscaloosa, just about 2 miles from campus. The homegrown kids got some props, but everyone wanted the top athletes to play here. And once you were a Bama player, you got all the glory and love from the entire town. These boys have trouble because they are college kids and heros at the same time.

I am not taking anything away from a diverse atmosphere in a huge CA city. But any college campus is going to have a good amount of diversity. Believe it or not, the international programs at UA are big.
 
WinterBorn said:
I grew up in Tuscaloosa, just about 2 miles from campus. The homegrown kids got some props, but everyone wanted the top athletes to play here. And once you were a Bama player, you got all the glory and love from the entire town. These boys have trouble because they are college kids and heros at the same time.

I am not taking anything away from a diverse atmosphere in a huge CA city. But any college campus is going to have a good amount of diversity. Believe it or not, the international programs at UA are big.
Click to expand...

My dad and sister were born in South Carolina and I've lived in South Carolina and Texas so I love the South and even though I live in SF I don't fancy myself some 'forward thinking' guy, I'm just a regular dude. I also hate LA.

The guy who wrote that has tracked recruiting for years and is from California so I'm not going to say he's the end all be all on the subject or that he can't be wrong but he's been in touch with a lot of players over the years so I don't think he speaks ignorantly on the subject.
 
cawacko said:
My dad and sister were born in South Carolina and I've lived in South Carolina and Texas so I love the South and even though I live in SF I don't fancy myself some 'forward thinking' guy, I'm just a regular dude. I also hate LA.

The guy who wrote that has tracked recruiting for years and is from California so I'm not going to say he's the end all be all on the subject or that he can't be wrong but he's been in touch with a lot of players over the years so I don't think he speaks ignorantly on the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he is not speaking ignorantly on the subject. And, over the years, there have been a lot of players who were used for their talent on the field and no one cared if they got a degree or not.

It would be interesting to see how many players were top recruits nationwide, and how they succeeded in college and later life.

One of my pet peeves is how these young athletes are seen as commodities and less as people/students.
 
Last edited:
Topspin said:
If the pac 10 is so good why do they only have one BCS NC and the SEC has 4???
Click to expand...
Bias in the polls. Two times this decade USC was the best team in the nation and they weren't invited to the mythical BCS NCG. Face it Topper. The SEC has ran away from USC. They're scared to play them.
 
cawacko said:
Dixie I never said all four OOC games were against Div II teams. I posted each teams schedule and highlighted the Div II games of which each team had one (only one team in the conference didn't).

And because the SEC has two undefeated teams doesn't mean its the better conference it means its top heavy. From top to bottom the Pac 10 is stronger this year. And obviously again you are ignoring the strength of schedule issue.

Because there is no playoff college football is always going to subject itself to this kind of debate but there is truly nothing as myopic as an SEC football fan.
Click to expand...

Well the Pac 10 certainly isn't stronger at the top, perhaps you can make a case for the bottom, but the top of the SEC is held by two undefeated teams while the top of the Pac 10 is held by a two-loss team... sooooo....
 
Dixie said:
Well the Pac 10 certainly isn't stronger at the top, perhaps you can make a case for the bottom, but the top of the SEC is held by two undefeated teams while the top of the Pac 10 is held by a two-loss team... sooooo....
Click to expand...
Sigggghhh you know the one real argument that doesn't give PAC10/Big10 fans a leg to stand on? Well to state the obvious, we need a national playoff to decide the championship on the field. Which two conferences are doing the most to obstruct such a tournament? The Big 10 and the Pac 10. Which conference supports a tournament? The SEC. Sighhhhhh we need a tournament.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sigggghhh you know the one real argument that doesn't give PAC10/Big10 fans a leg to stand on? Well to state the obvious, we need a national playoff to decide the championship on the field. Which two conferences are doing the most to obstruct such a tournament? The Big 10 and the Pac 10. Which conference supports a tournament? The SEC. Sighhhhhh we need a tournament.
Click to expand...

December Madness? January Madness??

A tournament would be awesome! Use the bowl games as playoffs and have a real championship.
 
First, besides morons the rest of the country knows the two most overrated teams in History are ND and USC. How is it obvious. ND has lost like 6 straight bowl games. USC which has way more AP voters in its state always, always loses to unranked teams.
Only someone raped recently by an SEC champion would come with some weak ass shit like that. Nice try weakling.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You'd think with a revenue stream of nearly $400 million dollars between the SEC and the Big 10 that they would be screaming for a playoff?
Click to expand...

Mott, since you are a fan of physiology, have you seen the recent research and considerations for banning helmets (and possibly pads) from football?

The number of brain injuries is staggering. And having the pads and helmets is said to have the players hitting harder.
 
that's crazy, they can just take the no helmet to helmet a little further banning any leading with the head.
Heads up football, and eliminate spearing a runner that is down. Which is already illegal but only called about 2% of the time.
 
Money is why they don't have a playoff.

These major bowl organizations are old and storied. They have a lot of old deep pockets, and much of their influence is intertwined with the city councils and local politics, and the current system is controlled and operated by these people. There is just too much money being made by the bowls, for them to change. Any 'playoff' system, would take their power to control, they would have to take whoever was seeded, and that would be it. Now that would be fine and well if the Sugar Bowl always ended up with Alabama vs. Oklahoma, or the Rose Bowl always had USC and Ohio State... but what if they draw Boise State and Utah? Who is going to Pasadena to watch it? Why would the Rose Bowl want to spend the necessary millions to host a game that will have little or no draw?
 
Topspin said:
that's crazy, they can just take the no helmet to helmet a little further banning any leading with the head.
Heads up football, and eliminate spearing a runner that is down. Which is already illegal but only called about 2% of the time.
Click to expand...

That would do ok for the tackling. But the lineman knock heads on every single play. Do a search on the information concerning brain injuries in football.

Rugby players have more shoulder or leg injuries, but far fewer brain injuries. And that is anything but a mild sport.
 
If each of these no championship game conferences would adopt one you'd get several favorites toppled each year. This would much improve the already great BCS system.
 
It would also add more money to the shitty conferences like the big 10 and pac 10 so they could maybe man up just a little.
 
Dixie said:
Money is why they don't have a playoff.

These major bowl organizations are old and storied. They have a lot of old deep pockets, and much of their influence is intertwined with the city councils and local politics, and the current system is controlled and operated by these people. There is just too much money being made by the bowls, for them to change. Any 'playoff' system, would take their power to control, they would have to take whoever was seeded, and that would be it. Now that would be fine and well if the Sugar Bowl always ended up with Alabama vs. Oklahoma, or the Rose Bowl always had USC and Ohio State... but what if they draw Boise State and Utah? Who is going to Pasadena to watch it? Why would the Rose Bowl want to spend the necessary millions to host a game that will have little or no draw?
Click to expand...

Simple answer would be to have evry bowl get more than one game. That would increase the revenues regardless of who plays.

Giving a city two bowl games with a Boise State or Utah would bring as much as an Alabama v. Oklahoma. A stadium 3/4 full twice would bring more than a sellout crowd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top