Conferences aren't usually judged by divisions. BSPN started doing it when the Miss. schools weren't their normal pile of garbage, and we also heard how Arkie was almost a great team who just needed to shake a 347 gayme SEC losing streak.
This. The whole division thing started as a spin device to keep the rest of the college football world in awe of the SEC. Best conference top to bottom is probably the pac/acc depending on how the rest of bowl season shakes out.
Also I think there is merit to understanding the concept of good teams getting better as the season progresses. Saying shit like "we have two teams playing for the title to Arizona and Vtech at home so it's all dreck" is the dumbest fucking concept. Serious 4th grade shit.
Boise State is better than 11 of the 12 teams in the Pac-12.
Why is it that losing to Arizona or Virginia Tech early is fine but losing a bowl game makes you Big Sky fodder? I thought the whole season mattered, isn't that the beauty of college football?
Arizona to the Pac is Missouri to the SEC. Everyone knows Arizona sucks and had an extremely lucky season.
Arizona got Oregon at a great time when Oregon was playing shitty and had some key injuries. They beat UTSA by 3. At home, needed a hail mary to beat Cal, and got really fucking lucky to beat UW. They had a couple nice wins, but they were really average.
Arizona won their division. Stanford lost three games to the Pac-12 South, so they're worse than Arizona too.
The Pac-12 fucking sucks too. Fortunately its one good team is better than the ACC's best. We'll find out if it's better than the B1G's best soon.
Football happens in spurts. Teams play well for stretches, then shitty. Some teams get better, some get worse. I agree that Stanford sucked for some of the year, but they plungered Cal, UCLA, and Maryland the last three games. They have had a good defense all year and the offense has gotten much better. Stanford would likely beat Arizona rather easily if they played now. I would bet money on Stanford beating either Mississippi, Auburn, or LSU. Arkansas is maybe the 2nd best SEC West team at the moment despite going 2-6.
CHRIST. Cal and Maryland are part of your argument?
I did upvote you for realizing that Arkansas is better than Stanford though.
Cal and Maryland suck, but they were plungered. Arkansas is not better than Stanford. That is really fucking stupid and there is no basis behind that other than advanced metrics that obviously overrated the SEC West.
Stanford: 8-5, 5-4 Arkansas: 7-6, 2-6
Stanford: +39 in conference Arkansas: -12 in conference
That 2-6 is looking pretty fucking bad now after bowl season.
Snark aside, I think Stanford-Arkansas would actually be a really good game. I'll take -12 with the Razorbacks conference schedule all day over +39 with Stanford's schedule. Arkansas played the six SEC West teams and Missouri while Stanford had four Pac-12 North fucking dreckfest games.
If you switched their schedules, I have no doubt Arkansas goes 5-4 or better in the Pac-12. Oddly enough, Stanford might have gone better than 2-6 too just because their style would throw off some SEC teams.
Conferences aren't usually judged by divisions. BSPN started doing it when the Miss. schools weren't their normal pile of garbage, and we also heard how Arkie was almost a great team who just needed to shake a 347 gayme SEC losing streak.
This. The whole division thing started as a spin device to keep the rest of the college football world in awe of the SEC. Best conference top to bottom is probably the pac/acc depending on how the rest of bowl season shakes out.
Also I think there is merit to understanding the concept of good teams getting better as the season progresses. Saying shit like "we have two teams playing for the title to Arizona and Vtech at home so it's all dreck" is the dumbest fucking concept. Serious 4th grade shit.
Boise State is better than 11 of the 12 teams in the Pac-12.
Why is it that losing to Arizona or Virginia Tech early is fine but losing a bowl game makes you Big Sky fodder? I thought the whole season mattered, isn't that the beauty of college football?
Arizona to the Pac is Missouri to the SEC. Everyone knows Arizona sucks and had an extremely lucky season.
Arizona got Oregon at a great time when Oregon was playing shitty and had some key injuries. They beat UTSA by 3. At home, needed a hail mary to beat Cal, and got really fucking lucky to beat UW. They had a couple nice wins, but they were really average.
fuck, don't explain it. every fucking body knows that teams look like shit at some point in the season. and conference play is weird and unpredictable. that's where 80% of the upsets happen, except those who follow any particular conference are never half as surprised as the outsiders are.
it's just the fucking way it is. that's how a 3-8 USC team played Washington close for 50 minutes in 1991. just the nature of conference play. it's how a shit BC team almost beat the 2001 Miami Hurricanes, who needed a true fucking miracle to pull that game out of their asses.
Oregon may not be an all-time great team, but the Pac 12 is no more "Down" this year than it was in 1991 or 1984 or 2000. Give me a fucking break.
Now you're getting it.
The SEC finally looked like shit during bowl season.
Welcome to the club.
By the way, the 2014 Pac-12 couldn't hold the 2000 Pac-10's jockstrap.
hmm. maybe 2000 was a better year. although USC was down, and that automatically makes the conference suspect. right?
i'll just say it: this year's Oregon team would thunder fuck 2000 Washington. the 2 Oregon teams, including the historic anomaly of the 2000 Beavs, probably tip the scales, but the rest is close to a wash.
I don't think your jock comments hold up to the comparison.
Fair point. This Oregon team is the best Pac team since Pete Carroll's teams and they would plunger rape the 2000 Huskies/Beavers/Ducks.
Are we judging the whole conference here or just the best team? It's two different arguments.
well, it depends. a conference can be good based on how tuff it is week to week. I think the Pac 12 holds up on that basis.
the other way to evaluate it is to check the quality of its best teams, say, the top 3 or so.
obviously, if a lot of your teams are just beating the shit out of everyone, then there's no discussion to be had.
i'd say this year the Pac 12 has one very very good team, and a bunch of teams that are good to pretty good, with two to three below average to dreck teams. there is of course no explaining Colorado or WSU, and maybe Cal, but that's where it stops. both LA teams were decent to pretty good, both Zonas were tuff outs, Washington made some strides and was not easy Saturday for anyone not named Oregon and Stanford took a step backwards was hardly an easy out.
to me the Pac was kind of typical in that it had one really good team and a bunch of teams that can beat you.
of course we can say the same thing about the SEC west.
I don't think everyone sucks. I think the grand design of greater parity continues to play out. Even the ACC made some fucking noise this year, and that conference has been absolute shit for a while now.
Conferences aren't usually judged by divisions. BSPN started doing it when the Miss. schools weren't their normal pile of garbage, and we also heard how Arkie was almost a great team who just needed to shake a 347 gayme SEC losing streak.
This. The whole division thing started as a spin device to keep the rest of the college football world in awe of the SEC. Best conference top to bottom is probably the pac/acc depending on how the rest of bowl season shakes out.
Also I think there is merit to understanding the concept of good teams getting better as the season progresses. Saying shit like "we have two teams playing for the title to Arizona and Vtech at home so it's all dreck" is the dumbest fucking concept. Serious 4th grade shit.
Boise State is better than 11 of the 12 teams in the Pac-12.
Why is it that losing to Arizona or Virginia Tech early is fine but losing a bowl game makes you Big Sky fodder? I thought the whole season mattered, isn't that the beauty of college football?
Arizona to the Pac is Missouri to the SEC. Everyone knows Arizona sucks and had an extremely lucky season.
Arizona got Oregon at a great time when Oregon was playing shitty and had some key injuries. They beat UTSA by 3. At home, needed a hail mary to beat Cal, and got really fucking lucky to beat UW. They had a couple nice wins, but they were really average.
fuck, don't explain it. every fucking body knows that teams look like shit at some point in the season. and conference play is weird and unpredictable. that's where 80% of the upsets happen, except those who follow any particular conference are never half as surprised as the outsiders are.
it's just the fucking way it is. that's how a 3-8 USC team played Washington close for 50 minutes in 1991. just the nature of conference play. it's how a shit BC team almost beat the 2001 Miami Hurricanes, who needed a true fucking miracle to pull that game out of their asses.
Oregon may not be an all-time great team, but the Pac 12 is no more "Down" this year than it was in 1991 or 1984 or 2000. Give me a fucking break.
Now you're getting it.
The SEC finally looked like shit during bowl season.
Welcome to the club.
By the way, the 2014 Pac-12 couldn't hold the 2000 Pac-10's jockstrap.
hmm. maybe 2000 was a better year. although USC was down, and that automatically makes the conference suspect. right?
i'll just say it: this year's Oregon team would thunder fuck 2000 Washington. the 2 Oregon teams, including the historic anomaly of the 2000 Beavs, probably tip the scales, but the rest is close to a wash.
I don't think your jock comments hold up to the comparison.
Fair point. This Oregon team is the best Pac team since Pete Carroll's teams and they would plunger rape the 2000 Huskies/Beavers/Ducks.
Are we judging the whole conference here or just the best team? It's two different arguments.
well, it depends. a conference can be good based on how tuff it is week to week. I think the Pac 12 holds up on that basis.
the other way to evaluate it is to check the quality of its best teams, say, the top 3 or so.
obviously, if a lot of your teams are just beating the shit out of everyone, then there's no discussion to be had.
i'd say this year the Pac 12 has one very very good team, and a bunch of teams that are good to pretty good, with two to three below average to dreck teams. there is of course no explaining Colorado or WSU, and maybe Cal, but that's where it stops. both LA teams were decent to pretty good, both Zonas were tuff outs, Washington made some strides and was not easy Saturday for anyone not named Oregon and Stanford took a step backwards was hardly an easy out.
to me the Pac was kind of typical in that it had one really good team and a bunch of teams that can beat you.
of course we can say the same thing about the SEC west.
I don't think everyone sucks. I think the grand design of greater parity continues to play out. Even the ACC made some fucking noise this year, and that conference has been absolute shit for a while now.
This is where we disagree.
The Pac-12 has one very good team, six average teams, one below average team, and four dreck teams.
Conferences aren't usually judged by divisions. BSPN started doing it when the Miss. schools weren't their normal pile of garbage, and we also heard how Arkie was almost a great team who just needed to shake a 347 gayme SEC losing streak.
This. The whole division thing started as a spin device to keep the rest of the college football world in awe of the SEC. Best conference top to bottom is probably the pac/acc depending on how the rest of bowl season shakes out.
Also I think there is merit to understanding the concept of good teams getting better as the season progresses. Saying shit like "we have two teams playing for the title to Arizona and Vtech at home so it's all dreck" is the dumbest fucking concept. Serious 4th grade shit.
Boise State is better than 11 of the 12 teams in the Pac-12.
Why is it that losing to Arizona or Virginia Tech early is fine but losing a bowl game makes you Big Sky fodder? I thought the whole season mattered, isn't that the beauty of college football?
Arizona to the Pac is Missouri to the SEC. Everyone knows Arizona sucks and had an extremely lucky season.
Arizona got Oregon at a great time when Oregon was playing shitty and had some key injuries. They beat UTSA by 3. At home, needed a hail mary to beat Cal, and got really fucking lucky to beat UW. They had a couple nice wins, but they were really average.
fuck, don't explain it. every fucking body knows that teams look like shit at some point in the season. and conference play is weird and unpredictable. that's where 80% of the upsets happen, except those who follow any particular conference are never half as surprised as the outsiders are.
it's just the fucking way it is. that's how a 3-8 USC team played Washington close for 50 minutes in 1991. just the nature of conference play. it's how a shit BC team almost beat the 2001 Miami Hurricanes, who needed a true fucking miracle to pull that game out of their asses.
Oregon may not be an all-time great team, but the Pac 12 is no more "Down" this year than it was in 1991 or 1984 or 2000. Give me a fucking break.
Now you're getting it.
The SEC finally looked like shit during bowl season.
Welcome to the club.
By the way, the 2014 Pac-12 couldn't hold the 2000 Pac-10's jockstrap.
hmm. maybe 2000 was a better year. although USC was down, and that automatically makes the conference suspect. right?
i'll just say it: this year's Oregon team would thunder fuck 2000 Washington. the 2 Oregon teams, including the historic anomaly of the 2000 Beavs, probably tip the scales, but the rest is close to a wash.
I don't think your jock comments hold up to the comparison.
Fair point. This Oregon team is the best Pac team since Pete Carroll's teams and they would plunger rape the 2000 Huskies/Beavers/Ducks.
Are we judging the whole conference here or just the best team? It's two different arguments.
well, it depends. a conference can be good based on how tuff it is week to week. I think the Pac 12 holds up on that basis.
the other way to evaluate it is to check the quality of its best teams, say, the top 3 or so.
obviously, if a lot of your teams are just beating the shit out of everyone, then there's no discussion to be had.
i'd say this year the Pac 12 has one very very good team, and a bunch of teams that are good to pretty good, with two to three below average to dreck teams. there is of course no explaining Colorado or WSU, and maybe Cal, but that's where it stops. both LA teams were decent to pretty good, both Zonas were tuff outs, Washington made some strides and was not easy Saturday for anyone not named Oregon and Stanford took a step backwards was hardly an easy out.
to me the Pac was kind of typical in that it had one really good team and a bunch of teams that can beat you.
of course we can say the same thing about the SEC west.
I don't think everyone sucks. I think the grand design of greater parity continues to play out. Even the ACC made some fucking noise this year, and that conference has been absolute shit for a while now.
This is where we disagree.
The Pac-12 has one very good team, six average teams, one below average team, and four dreck teams.
Conferences aren't usually judged by divisions. BSPN started doing it when the Miss. schools weren't their normal pile of garbage, and we also heard how Arkie was almost a great team who just needed to shake a 347 gayme SEC losing streak.
This. The whole division thing started as a spin device to keep the rest of the college football world in awe of the SEC. Best conference top to bottom is probably the pac/acc depending on how the rest of bowl season shakes out.
Also I think there is merit to understanding the concept of good teams getting better as the season progresses. Saying shit like "we have two teams playing for the title to Arizona and Vtech at home so it's all dreck" is the dumbest fucking concept. Serious 4th grade shit.
Boise State is better than 11 of the 12 teams in the Pac-12.
Why is it that losing to Arizona or Virginia Tech early is fine but losing a bowl game makes you Big Sky fodder? I thought the whole season mattered, isn't that the beauty of college football?
Arizona to the Pac is Missouri to the SEC. Everyone knows Arizona sucks and had an extremely lucky season.
Arizona got Oregon at a great time when Oregon was playing shitty and had some key injuries. They beat UTSA by 3. At home, needed a hail mary to beat Cal, and got really fucking lucky to beat UW. They had a couple nice wins, but they were really average.
fuck, don't explain it. every fucking body knows that teams look like shit at some point in the season. and conference play is weird and unpredictable. that's where 80% of the upsets happen, except those who follow any particular conference are never half as surprised as the outsiders are.
it's just the fucking way it is. that's how a 3-8 USC team played Washington close for 50 minutes in 1991. just the nature of conference play. it's how a shit BC team almost beat the 2001 Miami Hurricanes, who needed a true fucking miracle to pull that game out of their asses.
Oregon may not be an all-time great team, but the Pac 12 is no more "Down" this year than it was in 1991 or 1984 or 2000. Give me a fucking break.
Now you're getting it.
The SEC finally looked like shit during bowl season.
Welcome to the club.
By the way, the 2014 Pac-12 couldn't hold the 2000 Pac-10's jockstrap.
hmm. maybe 2000 was a better year. although USC was down, and that automatically makes the conference suspect. right?
i'll just say it: this year's Oregon team would thunder fuck 2000 Washington. the 2 Oregon teams, including the historic anomaly of the 2000 Beavs, probably tip the scales, but the rest is close to a wash.
I don't think your jock comments hold up to the comparison.
Fair point. This Oregon team is the best Pac team since Pete Carroll's teams and they would plunger rape the 2000 Huskies/Beavers/Ducks.
Are we judging the whole conference here or just the best team? It's two different arguments.
well, it depends. a conference can be good based on how tuff it is week to week. I think the Pac 12 holds up on that basis.
the other way to evaluate it is to check the quality of its best teams, say, the top 3 or so.
obviously, if a lot of your teams are just beating the shit out of everyone, then there's no discussion to be had.
i'd say this year the Pac 12 has one very very good team, and a bunch of teams that are good to pretty good, with two to three below average to dreck teams. there is of course no explaining Colorado or WSU, and maybe Cal, but that's where it stops. both LA teams were decent to pretty good, both Zonas were tuff outs, Washington made some strides and was not easy Saturday for anyone not named Oregon and Stanford took a step backwards was hardly an easy out.
to me the Pac was kind of typical in that it had one really good team and a bunch of teams that can beat you.
of course we can say the same thing about the SEC west.
I don't think everyone sucks. I think the grand design of greater parity continues to play out. Even the ACC made some fucking noise this year, and that conference has been absolute shit for a while now.
This is where we disagree.
The Pac-12 has one very good team, six average teams, one below average team, and four dreck teams.
Conferences aren't usually judged by divisions. BSPN started doing it when the Miss. schools weren't their normal pile of garbage, and we also heard how Arkie was almost a great team who just needed to shake a 347 gayme SEC losing streak.
This. The whole division thing started as a spin device to keep the rest of the college football world in awe of the SEC. Best conference top to bottom is probably the pac/acc depending on how the rest of bowl season shakes out.
Also I think there is merit to understanding the concept of good teams getting better as the season progresses. Saying shit like "we have two teams playing for the title to Arizona and Vtech at home so it's all dreck" is the dumbest fucking concept. Serious 4th grade shit.
Boise State is better than 11 of the 12 teams in the Pac-12.
Why is it that losing to Arizona or Virginia Tech early is fine but losing a bowl game makes you Big Sky fodder? I thought the whole season mattered, isn't that the beauty of college football?
Arizona to the Pac is Missouri to the SEC. Everyone knows Arizona sucks and had an extremely lucky season.
Arizona got Oregon at a great time when Oregon was playing shitty and had some key injuries. They beat UTSA by 3. At home, needed a hail mary to beat Cal, and got really fucking lucky to beat UW. They had a couple nice wins, but they were really average.
fuck, don't explain it. every fucking body knows that teams look like shit at some point in the season. and conference play is weird and unpredictable. that's where 80% of the upsets happen, except those who follow any particular conference are never half as surprised as the outsiders are.
it's just the fucking way it is. that's how a 3-8 USC team played Washington close for 50 minutes in 1991. just the nature of conference play. it's how a shit BC team almost beat the 2001 Miami Hurricanes, who needed a true fucking miracle to pull that game out of their asses.
Oregon may not be an all-time great team, but the Pac 12 is no more "Down" this year than it was in 1991 or 1984 or 2000. Give me a fucking break.
Now you're getting it.
The SEC finally looked like shit during bowl season.
Welcome to the club.
By the way, the 2014 Pac-12 couldn't hold the 2000 Pac-10's jockstrap.
hmm. maybe 2000 was a better year. although USC was down, and that automatically makes the conference suspect. right?
i'll just say it: this year's Oregon team would thunder fuck 2000 Washington. the 2 Oregon teams, including the historic anomaly of the 2000 Beavs, probably tip the scales, but the rest is close to a wash.
I don't think your jock comments hold up to the comparison.
Fair point. This Oregon team is the best Pac team since Pete Carroll's teams and they would plunger rape the 2000 Huskies/Beavers/Ducks.
Are we judging the whole conference here or just the best team? It's two different arguments.
well, it depends. a conference can be good based on how tuff it is week to week. I think the Pac 12 holds up on that basis.
the other way to evaluate it is to check the quality of its best teams, say, the top 3 or so.
obviously, if a lot of your teams are just beating the shit out of everyone, then there's no discussion to be had.
i'd say this year the Pac 12 has one very very good team, and a bunch of teams that are good to pretty good, with two to three below average to dreck teams. there is of course no explaining Colorado or WSU, and maybe Cal, but that's where it stops. both LA teams were decent to pretty good, both Zonas were tuff outs, Washington made some strides and was not easy Saturday for anyone not named Oregon and Stanford took a step backwards was hardly an easy out.
to me the Pac was kind of typical in that it had one really good team and a bunch of teams that can beat you.
of course we can say the same thing about the SEC west.
I don't think everyone sucks. I think the grand design of greater parity continues to play out. Even the ACC made some fucking noise this year, and that conference has been absolute shit for a while now.
This is where we disagree.
The Pac-12 has one very good team, six average teams, one below average team, and four dreck teams.
Now your SEC analysis.
SEC: One very good: Bama (feel free to move them down to good if Oregon plungers Ohio State) Eight average: Rest of the west + Georgia and Missouri. I actually couldn't find another team to move up to good here. Bowl season did bring the SEC down. Three below average: Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina Two fucking dreck: Kentucky and Vandy
XII: One very good: TCU One good: Baylor Four average: Kansas State, Oklahoma and West Virginia Two below average: Texas and Oklahoma State Three fucking dreck: Tech, Kansas, Iowa State
ACC: One good: Florida State Six average: Clemson, GT, Louisville, Duke, BC, NC State Five below average: rest of the Coastal Two fucking dreck: Wake and Syracuse
B1G: One very good: Ohio State One good: Michigan State Three average: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota Four below average: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Iowa Five fucking dreck: Illinois, NW, Purdue, Michigan, Indiana
Based on this, I'd rank the conferences in this order:
---- fucking dreckfest ----
1. SEC 2. XII 3. Pac 4. B1G (they passed the ACC today) 5. ACC
The SEC still has the best depth. Note that I only consider seven teams in America good or better, and I feel dirty including Baylor in that group of 7.
It's all subjective. How can you say the SEC West is best when the top 5 teams lost? Answer that. Because Sagarian says so?
Alabama- lost #7 MSU- Plungered. The score looks a lot closer than it was. #9 Ole Miss- Plungered Auburn- Lost to Big 10 supposed dreck coming off 59-0 loss LSU- Lost to Notre Dame who was recently plungered by both ASU and USC.
There is irony in you saying doogs hate facts.
5 games don't make a season.
answer the fucking question.
You're moving the goal poasts further than Auburndoog
I'm still waiting for an answer. I've gotten Big Sky so far. If you had said Missouri Valley, you might have won the thread.
Why do you hate the Great Northwest Athletic Conference?
Comments
If you switched their schedules, I have no doubt Arkansas goes 5-4 or better in the Pac-12. Oddly enough, Stanford might have gone better than 2-6 too just because their style would throw off some SEC teams.
the other way to evaluate it is to check the quality of its best teams, say, the top 3 or so.
obviously, if a lot of your teams are just beating the shit out of everyone, then there's no discussion to be had.
i'd say this year the Pac 12 has one very very good team, and a bunch of teams that are good to pretty good, with two to three below average to dreck teams. there is of course no explaining Colorado or WSU, and maybe Cal, but that's where it stops. both LA teams were decent to pretty good, both Zonas were tuff outs, Washington made some strides and was not easy Saturday for anyone not named Oregon and Stanford took a step backwards was hardly an easy out.
to me the Pac was kind of typical in that it had one really good team and a bunch of teams that can beat you.
of course we can say the same thing about the SEC west.
I don't think everyone sucks. I think the grand design of greater parity continues to play out. Even the ACC made some fucking noise this year, and that conference has been absolute shit for a while now.
The Pac-12 has one very good team, six average teams, one below average team, and four dreck teams.
One very good: Bama (feel free to move them down to good if Oregon plungers Ohio State)
Eight average: Rest of the west + Georgia and Missouri. I actually couldn't find another team to move up to good here. Bowl season did bring the SEC down.
Three below average: Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina
Two fucking dreck: Kentucky and Vandy
XII:
One very good: TCU
One good: Baylor
Four average: Kansas State, Oklahoma and West Virginia
Two below average: Texas and Oklahoma State
Three fucking dreck: Tech, Kansas, Iowa State
ACC:
One good: Florida State
Six average: Clemson, GT, Louisville, Duke, BC, NC State
Five below average: rest of the Coastal
Two fucking dreck: Wake and Syracuse
B1G:
One very good: Ohio State
One good: Michigan State
Three average: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota
Four below average: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Iowa
Five fucking dreck: Illinois, NW, Purdue, Michigan, Indiana
Based on this, I'd rank the conferences in this order:
---- fucking dreckfest ----
1. SEC
2. XII
3. Pac
4. B1G (they passed the ACC today)
5. ACC
The SEC still has the best depth. Note that I only consider seven teams in America good or better, and I feel dirty including Baylor in that group of 7.