Almost all of them seem capable of popping off a 2 win season as well.....that is not the case with other conferences. Hell even Indiana has avoided those of late...
What Should Texas Do?
- Thread starter Sgt John
- Start date
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Again 9 conference games vs. 8 conference games. Toughest schedule in the nation vs. not the toughest schedule in the nation.
Look at Washington for example:
9 conference games each year +Ohio State, +Oklahoma, +LSU, +Notre Dame(x2), +BYU, +Boise State, +BCS bowl bound Hawaii. That's just the last three years!
Meanwhile in the last 3 years Indiana has played:
8 conference games each year (missed Ohio State twice, Michigan twice, Minnesota once, & Michigan State once) +Virginia, +Indiana State, +Akron(x2), +Western Michigan(x2), +Ball State(x2), +Western Kentucky, +Murray State, +Central Michigan, +Eastern Kentucky
See the difference? They miss both Ohio State & Michigan, the big two of the Big Ten, in both 2007 & 2008 and play three games vs. D1-AA teams, and fourth vs. a very recent 1-AA team.
I see more excuses from the dome.....and a bunch of shitty seasons by the garbage in the Pac-10. 9 conference games with some of the seasons those teams have had is a great things for the decent Pac-10 teams.....it must be great to have a couple dial a wins yearly in your conference sched.
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Read my above post.
It is easier putting together a winning record not playing Ohio State & Michigan and playing 11 of the 12 non-con games vs. 1-AA teams or MAC teams.
I post it again, maybe you will read it this time:
Washington the last 3 seasons:
9 conference games each year +Ohio State, +Oklahoma, +LSU, +Notre Dame(x2), +BYU, +Boise State, +BCS bowl bound Hawaii. That's just the last three years!
Indiana last three seasons:
8 conference games each year (missed Ohio State twice, Michigan twice, Minnesota once, & Michigan State once) +Virginia, +Indiana State, +Akron(x2), +Western Michigan(x2), +Ball State(x2), +Western Kentucky, +Murray State, +Central Michigan, +Eastern Kentucky
See the difference? They miss both Ohio State & Michigan, the big two of the Big Ten, in both 2007 & 2008 and play three games vs. D1-AA teams, and fourth vs. a very recent 1-AA team.
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Look at NFL production if you won't take my word for it. The bottom teams in the Pac-10 have had better seasons & produce more NFL players than the bottom of the SEC. The reason the SEC is the best conference isn't because of the bottom, it is because of the 6 great programs at the top.
bodey24
Staff member
Who cares about who produces more NFL players. It's a team game. The crappy teams in every league produce NFL players. Just because one crappy team produces more players that fit into an NFL system doesn't mean that team is automatically better. Place the bottom 6 teams in the SEC vs. the bottom 6 teams in the Pac-10 and most years its going to be a split and occasionally one conference will win 4-2 or something like that. The difference between the bottom 6 teams isn't that much which is why the SEC is deeper than the Pac-10. This is insane that were even discussing this.
I have felt this way for most of the discussion.....I still can't believe I was actually in an argument in which water polo, fencing, and rowing were used as points and they were actually trying to be serious....
bodey24
Staff member
:rolllaugh:
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Looks like you are admitting defeat. Lame.
I'd give up too if I had to rationalize Indiana's lame, creampuff ridden schedule & the Big Ten's hidden secret of regularly missing good teams in conference.
Washington has played Ohio State the same amount of times the last 3 years as Indiana has! We played as many Natl. Title winning programs of the 00's in the last 3 years (4 in 7 games) as Indiana has played programs who are/were 1-AA in the 00's (4).
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Since you refuse to look at on the field success to gauge the strength of the programs, talent is the next logical place to compare. Plus it gives a little added insight to why the bottom of the SEC hasn't been able to compete at an elite level.
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Compare the sports that Texas takes seriously (i.e. not hockey & women's lacrosse where the Big Ten is strong) & the Pac-10 still comes out waaaaay on top. Every time I do the #s, what is, more than twice the # of championships? When I calculate the head to head, we win at over a 60% clip.
Big Ten is not on the same level as the Pac-10 on the field. There is one advantage the Big Ten clearly has over the Big Ten in football, but I let you try to figure that one out on your own.
lol, sorry Dome, I won this discussion a couple days ago, but you have been good hilarity for the site in the mean time.....
I'm not the one forced to make excuses to explain facts.....I'm just giving you numbers that matter and you come back with Rowing, Water Polo, reasons why you can only win 2 games a year, and that b/c you can fly directly 1000 miles it must be a geographic fit.....
Sorry, time to get some sleep to go to work.
bodey24
Staff member
LOL ok. I'm done with this debate. I know I am a huge homer but you take the term homer to a level I have never seen before.
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Look, I am providing actual facts & data. If you disagree with me, let's see your facts & data. Calling me a homer proves nothing.
bodey24
Staff member
The fact that you stand alone as the only person to actually believe that the Pac-10 is deeper than the SEC should be all you need. The SEC is a lot better at the top and then they are pretty even with the PAC-10 in the middle and at the bottom. So that would make the SEC deeper and tougher than the Pac-10.
This thread has taken over the SO...
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
Please recap that part, I must of missed it. Were you arguing the PAc-10 was better this whole time?
I am the one providing the facts. If you really believe playing 13 MAC/1-AA teams is better than playing Oklahoma, Ohio State, LSU, Boise State, Notre Dame, etc., then please explain why!
I totally shoot down your argument with facts. It is you that is reduced to changing the subject. Changing the subject to avoid facts is no different than making inane excuses.
Big Ten is a great fit for Texas because they play hockey, its cold, tough to travel to, and does not complement Texas's sports programs that well? Good luck winning that argument.
Here are the championship #s again, only including the sports Texas gives a rip about. (Bad news for you, Texas discontinued fencing in 1957):
Over the last decade:
Football: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1
M. Basketball: Big Ten 1, Pac-10 0
W. Basketball: Pac-10 0, Big Ten 0
Baseball: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 0
Softball: Pac-10 8, Big Ten 1
W Volleyball: Pac-10 5, Big Ten 3
M/W Cross Country: Pac-10 9, Big Ten 1
M/W Golf: Pac-10 8, Big Ten 1
W Rowing: Pac-10 4, Big Ten 0
W Soccer: Pac-10 1, Big Ten 0
M/W Tennis: Pac-10 10, Big Ten 1
M/W Swimming: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 0
M/W Indoor Track: Pac-10 6, Big Ten 1
M/W Outdoor Track: Pac-10 4, Big Ten 0
Total: Pac-10 62, Big Ten 10, Texas 8
LOL, you should of kept your mouth shut! The Big Ten needed those fencing, W. lacrosse, hockey, wrestling titles.
Pac-10: better climate, easier travel, better athletics. So what does the Big Ten have to offer Texas again?
Last edited by a moderator:
Kingdome
FOOTBALL!
The SEC is better at the top, no question. They are not better at the bottom. The Pac-10 is significantly more better at the bottom. Look at on field results & talent level.
Show me a link to someone who believes the SEC is the best top to bottom? That is not something you hear often. The Pac-10 is regularly called the best conference top to bottom. Not top conference over all, but best conference from the worst on up. The Pac-10 also plays everyone in their conference each year. How often do Georgia and Alabama play each other?
bodey24
Staff member
The SEC has a lot tougher in conference SOS than the Pac-10 and they play just as many good teams out of conference as the Pac-10 does. Don't you think its going to be tougher for the bottom teams in the SEC to win games when there playing the top half of the SEC?
Heres a couple stats for you:
1. The SEC is 63-40-6 against the Pac-10
2. If the Pac-10 had the deepest conference shouldn't they do well in bowl games? This past season 10 of the 12 SEC teams made a bowl game and they went 6-4.
7 of the 11 Big 10 teams made a bowl game and they went 4-3.
7 of the 10 Pac-10 teams made a bowl and they went 2-5.
2-5 in bowl games and you are gonna seriously sit there and argue they are deep?
Heres a couple stats for you:
1. The SEC is 63-40-6 against the Pac-10
2. If the Pac-10 had the deepest conference shouldn't they do well in bowl games? This past season 10 of the 12 SEC teams made a bowl game and they went 6-4.
7 of the 11 Big 10 teams made a bowl game and they went 4-3.
7 of the 10 Pac-10 teams made a bowl and they went 2-5.
2-5 in bowl games and you are gonna seriously sit there and argue they are deep?