so as i sit and watch those trojans of so-cal succumb to the corvalis curse yet again, i hear all the sec fans screaming lets bury usc. they are over-rated. then saturday comes, and florida shows us that super man does not wear tim tebow pajamas. now sec fans, dont come at me w/ its the sec. all the games are tough. mississippi was comming off of losing 9 straight sec games, and they have not won more than 4 games in five years. but they are better than oregon state right ? oregon state who has played in and won 4 straight bowl games. lets look at georgia.getting done at home by bama the way they did. national champs dont get punked at home like that. guess i was right when i said over rated. sec fans dont want to hear it, but the big 12 is tougher this year. I am not impressed w/ bama. no depth, and a sorry quarterback says you lose 2 to 3 games. this is the new college football. its not anyone can beat anyone in the sec, its anyone can win on any given saturday. USC's loss will look better because it was against what will be a bowl team in the weak this year pac 10. thats fine, I want my team in the title game. and if you can honestly say that usc couldn't compete w/ or beat any team in the nation on a neutral field w/ a month to prep. ( this is what a bowl game would be) then you are biased, or have an agenda. I predicted a florida v. usc title game, but floridas lack of a run game worries me. i will stick w/ it though, but welcome to the new college football. upsets every week, and 2 loss national champs. enjoy

as i sit here watching vandy slap the fake usc, i ponder why sec fan cries when i claim that the conference is a tad bit over-rated. I know that I will hear about how the sec beats itself up (like no other conference does, right?) or how on any given day an sec team can win. I know that every conference has teams that suck, and i am not saying that the whole sec is sorry. I just think that the big 12 and pac 10 are just as talented. you see, when vandy (who is sorry) beats south carolina, that does not mean that they are both good. it means that they both suck. along w/ kentucky, arkansas, ole miss, and miss. st. we might have to throw tennesse in there.( i am a pac 10 guy, but UCLA is in rebuild mode and not very good) I am not sold on bama either. look at last years late collapse. its little nickys m.o. I know that florida is good. I think they will play sc for the title this year. uga is good, but not #1,2,3,4,or 5 in the nation. all i am saying is the sec is not as tough as sec fan thinks. you are as top heavy as you claim everyone else to be.

10-6 this decade. thats what the pac 10 is v. the sec. Tonight, our 6th maybe even 7th best team took down your # 4. and sec fan wonders why the pac 10 is not afraid of the big, bad sec. UCLA will only get better w/ slick rick calling the shots, and our conference will only grow stronger. Georgia is losing players left and right heading into their showdown w/ ASU in a couple weeks. I can already hear the excuses, they do have a beast of a schedule, but so-cal is the best team in the nation anyway. I pray for the USC v. Florida match that i predicted , but the season is starting off great anyway. So w/ that sec fan, tell me how my ass taste.

As I sit here and listen to Lou speak, I realize how stupid he is. He is trying to convince america that south carolina has a shot to win the east, and that they are a title contender. are you serious lou? as i watch them play n.c. state, i am trying to stay awake. south carolina is a terrible team. they showed it last year, and are on their way this year. BUT, because they play in the sec, and holtz beats off to anything that has to do w/ the sec, he gives them a pass.( i guess he did coach there) but then he goes on to say that Alabama will beat Clemson. HOW? bama has no line backers to stop thunder and lightning. john parker is average at best. Come on Holtz, stop hating everyone else, give USC (trojans-the onlyUSC) the love they deserve, and realize that the football was not created in south carolina.

Posted by Bob Rickert April 27, 2008 22:56PM

Interesting comparison. The SEC loves to blab on about how it's way better than every other conference. Well at least this year the NFL Scouts don't think so. As HoorayDucks posted on the DSA board, more Pac-10 players were chosen than SEC players.

Players drafted from the PAC 10: 37 (3.7 per team)

Players drafted from the SEC : 35 (2.9 per team)

But wait. let's get the SEC whine in there about how it's all USC. Okay, let's take the 10 players from USC out. What does that mean? Take 10 off the board and one team (USC), and 7 off the board and the top SEC team (LSU) and the Pac-10 still averaged more players taken per team. 3.0 to 2.7

The facts don't lie. The Pac 10 has as much talent as any conference in the nation. Period.

2000

Alabama 24, UCLA 35 Pac-10 winner

2001

UCLA 20, Alabama 17 Pac-10 winner

2002

Auburn 17, USC 24 Pac-10 winner

Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 Pac-10 winner

2003

USC 23, Auburn 0 Pac-10 winner

LSU 59, Arizona 13 SEC winner

Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 Pac-10 winner

2004

Oregon State 21, LSU 22 SEC winner

2005

Arkansas 17, USC 70 Pac-10 winner

LSU 35, Arizona State 31 SEC winner

2006

USC 50, Arkansas-- Pac-10 winner

Washington State--, Auburn 40 SEC winner

Arizona 3, LSU 45 SEC winner

California 18, Tennessee 35 SEC winner

2007 Tennessee 31, California 45 Pac-10 winner

Since the 2000 season, the Pac-10 has a 9-6 advantage over the SEC. Now I know some fine folks in the South will argue that the reason why the Pac-10 has an advantage is because USC is the only team worth anything in the conference. Sound familiar, SEC fans?

Let's take USC out of the equation, but to be be fair, let's take out LSU as well. USC had four of their conference's wins while LSU had four of the SEC's. The new tally is now 5-2, Pac-10 smoking the SEC.

In other words, USC was responsible for less than 50% of its conferences' wins, but LSU was responsible for 66% of their conference's wins. Just who is the "top heavy" conference here?

Want more darts thrown?

Two of the SEC's wins, in 2004 and 2005, were won by a combined 5 points. That's it!

In 2004, LSU beat Oregon State, at Baton Rouge, by one point in OT. The same Oregon State team that went 6-5 that season. Barely a .500 team. A team that lost to Boise State and barely beat New Mexico, but took the Bayou Bengals to OT.

Additional darts to be thrown:

The SEC has played fifteen games against the Pac-10, and of the six wins they had, only two were on the road. The Pac-10, on the other hand, won four of their nine road games and sent one into OT.

Now, on to those big-mouths who keep talking about how the Pac-10 has to play tougher non-conference games because of their weak schedule.

FACT: a .500 (regular season) Pac-10 team beat the SEC East champion last year.

You can spin that all you want, but the fact of the matter is that when you tout your divisional champs as the two best teams in the SEC, than what does that say about your strength when a mediocre Cal beats your divisional champ?

FACT: in 2006, a 10-3 Arkansas team lost to USC 50-14 early on in the season, then lost its final two games to #9 LSU by 5 points, and #4 Florida by 10. An Arkansas team that represented the SEC West in a conference championship game, who got manhandled by USC at Fayetteville by 36 points.

Are you seeing a trend here? Again, a divisional champ in the SEC who got beat by a Pac-10 team....on the road!

You see, when you play teams like SE Missouri State, Utah State and Louisiana-Monroe because you claim you don't need to prove how good you are due to tough conference strength, that argument goes down the wayside.

By playing some BCS teams, you have shown just how much your conference appears to be overrated against the Pac-10. You do look good when you play the cupcakes, but when you play the Pac-10, you get exposed.

Sure you had a lot of teams bowling last year, but when you play four cupcakes for easy wins, you only have to beat two conference foes to become bowl eligible with six wins.

One last point. There are two Pac-10 vs. SEC games this year. Tennessee at UCLA, and Georgia at Arizona State.

I fully expect the Vols to beat the Bruins- UCLA has a new coaching staff, and lost 25 lettermen, seventeen of which were starters, and they have two hurt quarterbacks- so I'll give you that game.

But what's with all the smack about Arizona State laying down to the Bulldogs?

Let's take a look at the Dawgs' last year's schedule, shall we?

You lost to South Carolina by 4 points, beat Alabama by 3 in OT. So far, not impressed by ya'll playing teams with a collective record of 13-12 and going 1-1.

You beat Ole Miss handily, lost to Tennessee by three touchdowns, barely beat Vandy (by 3 pts!), beat Florida soundly and let Troy score 34 points on you (44-34 win). I'm not seeing signs of the vaunted D yet, are you?????

You beat Auburn 45-20. That's an impressive win. You beat Kentucky 24-13 and Georgia Tech 31-17. Meh.

Just where in there do you think you will beat ASU by 40? If you can barely beat Vandy and Troy, I want to know what rationale reasoning you have to defend that argument. It boggles the mind.

Do you SEC fans not get it? You shoot your mouths off about how the Sun Devils lost to USC last year 44-24, but forget the fact that your divisional champ, and the team you lost to by THREE TDs, was beat by a mediocre Pac-10 team. CAL.

Look, I have no problem with the love affair with your conference. But when you make stupid statements like the "Pac-10 is weak and the SEC is the best" when the Pac-10 has owned your behinds this decade, it makes you look like you have been drinking too much of that Kool-aid.

Be respectful of other teams and conferences. I have tried to remain respectful but this latest round of smack is so ridiculous and absurd, it warrants a response.

Remember, you are on the road (for a non-conference game) for the first time since 1965, and looking at the SEC's track record against the Pac-10 this past decade, that might be a decided disadvantage for the 'Dawgs.

Try to leave some bread crumbs on the way to Tempe so you can find your way back to Athens.

If you win, crow all you want. And if you lose, no worries. You still have the Sugar Bowl to look forward to. Either way, it should be a great game, and may the best team win.

"In fact, the whopping 77 bowl appearances that SEC schools have made in the BCS era give them a commanding lead in this category. At a distant second is the Pac-10, with only 55 bowl appearances in the same time period."

This fact would mean something if the two conference had an equal amount of teams. In the BCS era, the SEC has had 120 chances for its teams to go to a bowl game. The Pac-10 has had 100. Therefore, 45 Pac-10 teams missed a bowl game since 1998. 43 SEC teams missed a bowl game since 1998. Now does the stat make sense to you, Brian?

Brian continues to defy logic as he goes on to say, "Despite the fact that the Big Ten has some of the largest capacity stadiums in the nation, the SEC continues to shatter college football attendance records. In 2007, Alabama fans actually packed Bryant-Denny Stadium with 92,000 for the Spring Game!"

What college football attendance records do you shatter? That the Yale Bowl has an attendance of 20,000 more people than Vanderbilt's stadium even holds?

.And it's not really despite the fact that Big Ten schools have the largest capacity stadiums when the Big Ten owns the school with the largest average attendance. Michigan average 110,026. Penn State averaged 107,567. Ohio State averaged 105,096.

The SEC's best? Tennessee's Neyland Stadium at 105,789. Congratulations, if your thing is building mega-stadiums, you still come in second place. And this time to an even more unworthy opponent, the Big Ten. Tennessee, SEC's leader, would sneak by with the third largest attendance in the Big Ten.

The SEC hardly even beats the Pac-10 top to bottom, as the SEC has 9 teams in the top 36 attendance leaders, while the Pac-10 has 7.

Scott goes on to say, "Even Vanderbilt, who only has a student population of just over six thousand, averages almost 35,000 fans per game in the post- Jay Cutler era."

Firstly, Vanderbilt has just over 6,000 undergraduate students, not overall. I think a team that has a similar student population lies within Pac-10 territory: Stanford with 6,700 undergraduates. Stanford's average attendance in 2006 was 41,742.

That's not to mention that the Nashville metro area has 1.5 million people living in it, while puny Palo Alto, California has a population of 61 thousand. Please don't claim that even Vanderbilt has such a great following. It's a stupid argument.

Scott talks about the tailgates and such, and that's great. But that has nothing to do with football or who's a better conference. Just because I wake up at 7 o'clock and day drink all day in a parking lot does not make me a better football fan. All you are saying is that a football game is more of a social event than compared to other places in the country.

SEC fans seem to think their conference is so great. They constantly schedule non-conference cupcakes so that they can secure victories. Well why don't we take a look at some games and see just how invincible they really are. And then let's take a look at how those teams did that season and see how great the SEC really is.

2003 - Northern Illinois 19, Alabama 16

Alabama beat Kentucky and Mississippi State that same year.

Northern Illinois lost to Toledo and Bowling Green that same year.



2003 - Memphis 44, Ole Miss 24

Ole Miss beat Auburn, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina that same year.

Memphis lost to Southern Miss and UAB that same year.

2004 - Maine 9, Mississippi State 7

Mississippi State beat Florida that same year.

Maine lost to Hofstra, UMass, Montana, and James Madison that same year.

2007 - ULM 21, Alabama--

Alabama beat Tennessee, Ole Miss, and Arkansas that same year.

ULM lost to Middle Tennessee State and North Texas that same year.

I've recently had the pleasure of reading an article entitled, "SEC Envy" by Bleacher Report's own Donald Fincher.

It brought up some very interesting and irrelevant points as to why Mr. Fincher believes that SEC football is superior to Pac-10 football. I am here to dispel them and make SEC football look even worse than I already have done in my first five editions of "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football," the series.

SEC Fans Must Label Themselves "SEC Fans" Because Their Not Good Enough Alone

In Mr. Fincher's profile, he claims that he is, "a college football nut, a SEC fan, and a Arkansas Razerbacks fan." I find it interesting that every fan of an SEC team has to represent for the entire SEC. Why is that?

No other conference in college football needs to talk about their conference more than the SEC. If an Oregon fan were on this site, they would say, "I'm an Oregon fan," not, "I'm a Pac-10 fan and an Oregon fan." And its not just Donald Fincher who feels the need to represent the SEC all the time - it's every single person associated with the SEC.

Prior to the 2006 California-Tennessee contest, there were chants of SEC coming from the Tennessee huddle. Why can't you just play football, do you have something to prove? Why can't you stand alone and have pride in your program? Why do you always have to bring your conference into the mix?

Auburn Tiger fan Liger called me out on "Pac-10 Football is Better Than SEC Football: Part One" when he said, "Sorta reminds me of car commercials that go on and on about how thier cars are better than Mercedes...I'm thinking, heck, the fact that you must compare yourself to Mercedes tells me you think they are the best," due to the fact I was comparing the Pac-10 with the SEC.

Liger, sorry buddy, but I'm comparing the SEC with the Pac-10 because everyone has a misperception that the SEC is somehow a better conference than the Pac-10.

Now, let's take a look at some of the dubious and irrelevant points that Donald Fincher makes in his attempt to derail my series that is turning people's minds upside-down.

"We Should Discard the Pac-10 and SEC's Head-to-Head Matchups"

Many of Mr. Fincher's arguments are one-sided and therefore I can hardly take them seriously. The first quotation I have a problem with is: "...The Pac-10 is 5-2 against the SEC since 2000 [discounting LSU and USC's wins]. Now, consider that Mississippi State (a perennial SEC cellar dweller) and 'Bama (during their NCAA probation and coaching-carousel years) account for four of those five losses and you get a different story."

Well now, let's take one more look at those games, listed below for convenience.

2000

Alabama 24, UCLA 35 {PAC10}

2001

UCLA 20, Alabama 17 {PAC10}

2002

Auburn 17, USC 24 {PAC10}

Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 {PAC10}

2003

USC 23, Auburn 0 {PAC10}

LSU 59, Arizona 13 {SEC}

Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 {PAC10}

2004

Oregon State 21, LSU 22 {SEC}

2005

Arkansas 17, USC 70 {PAC10}

LSU 35, Arizona State 31 {SEC}

2006

USC 50, Arkansas-- {PAC10}

Washington State--, Auburn 40 {SEC}

Arizona 3, LSU 45 {SEC}

California 18, Tennessee 35 {SEC}

2007

Tennessee 31, California 45 {PAC10}



Interesting how Mr. Fincher mentions the low-rated teams that the Pac-10 beat, but fails to mention the sub-par teams from the Pac-10 that the SEC played.

With the exception of the 2006 California-Tennesse game, the SEC (less LSU) beat the Pac-10 one time. And that was when Auburn beat a Washington State team who finished 6-6 and 4-5 in the Pac-10 in 2006.

Why don't we just throw out every head-to-head matchup between the two conferences? Because it would certainly be better for the SEC to rid themselves of all those head-to-head losses! Yes, Mr. Fincher, it would be good to just discard all those games because the bottom line is that the Pac-10 has beat up on the SEC when they have battled head-to-head since 2002.

"The SEC Has Done Spectacular Post-Season Play"

Mr. Fincher goes on to claim, "the SEC went to nine bowl games last year and won seven including their two BCS bowls...which means they are beating quality teams from other conferences in the postseason as well."

If this claim is supposed to mean that the SEC can compete with teams out of conference, then think again. One, the fact remains that the SEC does not schedule quality teams out of conference. When you play a bowl game, you must play a certain team, you don't get to chicken out with who you face. Two, playing a team in a bowl game coming off three or four weeks rest is a whole other animal than playing a game with injuries in the grind of a season.

Also, these are not necessarily quality teams that the SEC is beating. Yes, Auburn over Clemson, Tennessee over Wisconsin, and LSU over Ohio State are all impressive wins. But the rest of that 7-2 record? It includes an embarassing loss to Michigan, a blowout win by Missouri, and wins over 6-7 Colorado, UCF, and roster-depleted Florida State.

To make things worse, Mr. Fincher goes on to try and justify these losses (a true SEC fan always does). He says, "the bowl losses were by Florida to a Michigan team that was playing lights out because their seniors (Henne, Hart, etc.) had never won a bowl game, and the whole team wanted to send Lloyd Carr out with a win." This is the same type of resistance I met when I said USC smacked the same teams LSU barely beat. Nic Gulas told me, "Four of the games that you picked out for comparison [between USC and LSU] are rivalry games for LSU. Arkanas battles for the Golden Boot year in and year out and Auburn-LSU is quite an intense and defensive game."

Again, what in the world makes you think that a team doesn't try as hard against non-SEC opponents? What makes you think that just because Michigan wants to win a game that's how they won it? Didn't Florida also want to win that game, or did they just say, "Oh, Michigan wants it more because of their seniors and their coach, so we should hand them the game"? What makes you think those Florida seniors didn't want to go out victorious?

When you ask yourself these questions, you begin to see how dumb that argument is.

"The SEC Schedules Tough Non-Conference Games"

Another rediculous claim made by Mr. Fincher in "SEC Envy" states that the SEC plays a rigorous non-conference schedule. He says, "While the SEC is still playing some cream puffs in the early non-conference, so is everyone else."

Well buddy, as I stated before in "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football: Part One" the SEC has scheduled ten FCS games this year as opposed to the Pac-10's two.

To make matters worse, you go on to say that the SEC has some great non-conference games this year. For a full discussion of how a Pac-10 schedule dominates the SEC's schedule, take a look at "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football: Part Two." In brief, here are some of the games you list:

Arkansas vs. Texas -- This is the exception. A quality non-conference opponent in Texas.

Tennessee vs. UCLA -- The same UCLA that the entire Pac-10 plays every year?

Georgia vs. Arizona State -- The same Arizona State the entire Pac-10 plays every year?

Alabama vs. Clemson -- Play week one so as not to hurt Alabama's final rankings. If Alabama plays decent in the SEC, they will finish the season Top 25.

Florida vs. Miami -- The same Miami that has turned in 7-6 and 5-7 seasons the past two years?

Florida vs. Florida State -- The Seminoles don't have more than eight wins in a season since 2004.

South Carolina vs. Clemson -- A quality game.

Georgia vs. Georgia Tech -- The Yellow Jackets have gone 7-6 every year since 2002 with the exception of 2006.

Auburn vs. West Virginia -- A quality game.

Why don't you take a look at those non-conference games and compare them to the non-conference games the Pac-10 plays this year. #3 Oklahoma? #2 Ohio State? Notre Dame? Penn State? #25 Fresno State? #20 Virginia? Michigan State? Maryland? The list goes on.

Irrelevant Point Number One: The Heisman

Mr. Fincher, presumably running out of ammunition about half way through his article says, "an SEC player won the Heisman last year (Tebow), and an SEC player was also the runner up (McFadden). In fact, McFadden was the runner up two years in a row."

First off, I don't really care who wins the Heisman. How does that make you a better conference? But if you really want to argue, then we can.

The Pac-10's won the Heisman three out of the last five years, while the SEC has won it once. The Pac-10 has 11 Heisman Finalists (top 10 in Heisman votes), while the SEC has four since 2002. So I guess that Pac-10 is superior in that category as well.

And let me also say that before everyone jumps to say that all three Heismans were won by USC players, those eleven finalists come from USC, Washington State, Oregon, and Cal. The SEC's four come from Arkansas, LSU, and Florida.

Irrelevant Point Number Two - The SEC Produces More Pros

One other point Mr. Fincher states is that, "the SEC has more players in the pros than any other conference." I don't care how much talent you produce; the only thing that matters is how good the players are in college. USC receiver Mike Williams was a great college player but a terrible professional. How does that affect how he did at USC?

Irrelevant Point Number Three - SEC Coaches Own More National Championships

The next irrelevant point is that, "the SEC has five coaches who have won national championship games (twice as many as any other conference)." How does that make a difference? It may mean that the SEC has more tradition, it may mean that they put together better gameplans, but the bottom line is that production on the field makes you a better conference, not how many national titles your head coaches have combined.

Irrelevant Point Number Four - Attendance and Money

The author of "SEC Envy" continues to babble on about nothing that has anything to do with the Pac-10 versus SEC debate when he mentions that, "the SEC has by far the highest attendance of any league..." and that, "the SEC is by far the highest revenue-producing conference of any league." That has nothing to do with how well the teams play.



I look up to the sky and ask myself, "Why do SEC fans constantly have to defend themselves that they are the best conference?" But the answer comes time and time again that they are just not. The Pac-10 is. And in the famous words of Mr. Fincher, "now if I could only figure out why that seems to be such a bad thing to so many people. That keeps eluding me." (Thomas Brown-Bleacher report)

Again, more compelling statements. where are you sec fan? this is how most of america feels about you.

There are so many reasons the Pac-10 is a much better conference than the SEC any day of the weeka€"and I'm here to tell you why.

I don't want to overburden you with a thousand-page essay on why the Pac-10 eats the SEC for lunch, so I'll take it part by part. In Part One of "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football," we'll take a look at out-of-conference scheduling.

The Southeastern Conference might as well change its name to the Schedules Easy Cupcakes League, because that's exactly what it is.



"We Have So Many Teams Over .500"

I love how SEC fans brag about how their conference is so great because all of their teams post such great records, and that all their teams are above .500.

An SEC fan might brag to me: "Only two of our teams finished below .500 last year, Vanderbilt and Ole Miss. Vandy was barely below too at 5-7. So basically, only one of our twelve teams finished below .500."

It is true that only two of the SEC's twelve teams finished below .500 last year. Vanderbilt finished 5-7 and Ole Miss 3-9.

Let me tell you something: The reason why all your teams finished above .500 is because you scheduled a bunch of cupcakes in your non-conference schedule.

Vanderbilt only got to their 5-7 record by going 3-1 in non-conference, playing Richmond, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, and Wake Forest (who they lost to). None of those teams are impressive.

Ole Miss only got to their 3-9 record by going 3-1 out of conference as well. The Rebels played Memphis, Missouri (loss), Louisiana Tech, and Northwestern State. Again, three wins against three cupcakes.



Pac-10: "We Schedule Decent Non-Conference Opponents"

If we look at the final Pac-10 standings from 2007, we see that there are three teams that finished below .500: Washington State (5-7), Stanford (4-8), and Washington (4-9). Combined, these three teams were 5-5 out of conference, compared to the two SEC bottom-feeders' 6-2 record.

Washington State squared off against Wisconsin, San Diego State, and Idaho. Stanford faced San Jose State, TCU, and Notre Dame. Washington played Syracuse, Boise State, Ohio State, and Hawaii.

How do those teams compare to the ones I just mentioned that Vanderbilt and Ole Miss played? They don't.

The Pac-10 goes out of their way to schedule marquee games, or at least face a decent opponent week in and week out. They never take games off playing the likes of Northwestern State.



The Trend Continues This Year

I don't mean to only look at the SEC's horrendous non-conference scheduling from the 2007 season. It carries over into the 2008 season.

Just take a look below as I list every DI-AA (or FCS, whatever you kids call it these days) opponent that the SEC and Pac-10 face in the 2008 season.



SEC (9)

Western Illinois @ Arkansas

Georgia Southern @ Georgia

Appalachian State @ LSU

Norfolk State @ Kentucky

Southeastern Louisiana @ Mississippi State

Samford @ Ole Miss

Wofford @ South Carolina

Tennessee-Martin @ Auburn

The Citadel @ Florida



Pac-10 (2)

Northern Arizona @ Arizona State

Portland State @ Washington State



The Pac-10 takes pride in their non-conference scheduling. They don't mar their schedule with the Samfords and the Woffords of the world. The SEC plays NINE games this year that make no difference to anybody in the world except for the FCS team they're playing.

This is not even to mention all the lower-tier FBS schools the SEC schedules that the Pac-10 doesn't. I won't go into that because it is more subjective.



The SEC Doesn't Play Big Games

All I'm saying is that we would never see an SEC team playing an early-season thriller. The SEC will never play a big non-conference game during the season.

The biggest SEC non-conference matchup we'll ever see is Arizona State-Georgiaa€"and even that is not that exciting, considering Georgia is coming in as the top-ranked team in the country.

We'll never see No. 2 Ohio State versus No. 4 Texas. We'll never see Notre Dame versus USC. We'll never see this year's Ohio State-USC matchup.

That will never happen in the SEC because they're too worried about protecting themselves early in the season so they can have their shot at winning the national championship.

Unfortunately, under the current system, playing a weak non-conference schedule and winning all your games will usually get you to the national championship game. (Thomas Brown- bleacher report)

I found this article quite interesting. okay sec fan, give me proof this is wrong. dont tell me about big stadiums, high attendance, rich tradition. give me numbers, give me facts.

ok, so as college football is about to get started up, it is fair to say that the first big time game is USC v. Ohio State. I have been all over the yard listening to buckeye fan talk big. Its alright to get excited, but be realistic buckeye fan. I am a trojan fan ( have been all my life ) so it goes w/o saying that I dislike the big 10. Big 10 fan doesnt care for the pac 10. Now I cant wait to watch this game for a couple reasons. I know that it will be exciting, there will be trash talk, big hits, and lots of points. Since I have a hard time being objective when talking about ohio state, lets check numbers.

conference head to head

105-80-2 -pac 10

(16-9 pac 10 the last 5yrs.)

USC v. OSU head to head

15-9-1 -USC

and just because i like to pick on the sec;

USC-16-10-1 v. the sec

OSU-3-11-1 v. the sec

both schools have seven heisman winners, and USC has the edge in national titles 11 to 7. (still waiting for a playoff here). I know that this is all in the past ,although the pac10 has owned the big 10 as of late, I just cant see why silly buckeye fan still runs their mouth. You got blasted in your last two bowl games. I dont even know the last big non-conference game you have won. Now I know that I am going to be attacked for this, but give me some positive stat that proves you belong here because I just gave you quite a few as to why you might not.

this has been a great year of college football. It sucks that the men of troy lost to stanford, but things happen. years like this one always get me complaining about wanting a playoff. think of all the great possible match ups. (the sec would actually have to play someone outside of their conferance...oh my) but the bowls look promising none the less. so away we go...

1. Oregon is the best team in the nation right now. remember, I am a trojan fan, and they did us in autzen. In all honesty Oregon could beat anyone in the country on a neutral site. If you cant see that then you either hate oregon, or have an agenda. the whole world is waiting for ohio st to screw up, and if alabama could hang almost 40 on LSU, then oregon could too.

2. quarterback U needs a qb. USC's woes go back to j.d booty losing 2 games for us last year.(take the sack against ucla, and its us walking all over ohio st in the title game ) I have seen why mark sanchez has ridden the pine for so long, and will continue to next year while mitch mustain is our starter.

3. the sec is not as dominate as you think. 1 and 4. your record against non-conferance teams that are bowl elligible. I have always said that every conferance beats itself up, so that is not an excuse. I know crazy sec fan will whine like a baby when they see this, so please- just tell me why you are 1 and 4 against teams that are not west carolina, or nevada community college- you know , a traitional sec non-conferance schedule. I think all teams in the are really close in talent level, but there is no dominant team. look at the sec east and tell me its not mediocre w/ a straight face.

4.ohio state is better than i think. I know they have a cupcake schedule, but they just dont make many mistakes. I feel like they are the 5th or 6th best team in football, but they keep proving me wrong. can they run the table? probably. i think illinois has a real good chance of getting them though.

5.kansas is not for real. can i say kentucky, south carolina, south florida, boston college, arizona state. play a good team (missou, oklahoma) and lose like these fake teams before you.

ESPN.com examined which teams were the most overrated and underrated over the last 10 college football seasons by taking a team's preseason ranking in the AP Top 25 poll and compared it to where that team finished the season. Here are the highlights:

Most overrated teams in last 10 years:

1. Florida State (-63)

2. Tennessee (-58)

3. Washington (-42)

4. Miami (-35)

T5. Ohio State (-34)

T5. Nebraska (-34)

7. Florida (-33 1/2)

8. Michigan (-25)

9. Texas (-24)

10. Clemson (-22)

Most underrated teams in last 10 years:

1. Washington St. (+51)

2. Boise State (+48)

3. Oregon (+32 1/2)

4. Arkansas (+26)

5. Wisconsin (+23)

6. Louisville (+20)

7. TCU (+18)

T8. Boston College (+17)

T8. Iowa (+17)

T8. Maryland (+17)

BCS Conferences:

1. Pac-10 (+60 1/2)

2. Big East (+9)

3. Big 10 (+3)

4. SEC (-12 1/2)

5. Big 12 (-78 1/2)

6. ACC (-102)

The formula was simple: We took a team's preseason ranking in the AP Top 25 poll and compared it to where that team finished the season. For example, if State U. was ranked No. 6 in the preseason poll and finished 11th, the team lost five points. Conversely, if State Tech was ranked 13th in the preseason and finished second, it gained 11 points.

Any team that started or finished the season unranked was given a ranking of No. 26. For example, if State U. started the season ranked No. 7 and finished unranked, it lost 19 points, and vice versa.

Only teams that were ranked in at least three of the 10 preseason polls or final polls from 1997-2006 were included in the list of overrated and underrated teams. All teams included in at least one poll were included in conference standings.

The results of the survey are probably surprising to even the most die-hard college football fans:

• The Pac-10 was by far the most underrated conference the last 10 years, thanks to yeoman's work from Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State. The Ducks improved their ranking significantly four straight seasons from 1998-2001, and the Beavers went from unranked to No. 4 at the end of the 2000 season. The Big East and Big Ten also finished on the positive side in aggregate score.

• Big 12 teams were the most overrated during the last 10 years. Only three teams included in the survey -- Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech -- improved their overall ranking. Nebraska, Texas and Texas A&M were the league's most overrated teams.

Certainly, the preseason AP poll has proved to be far from prophetic, which is good news for teams ranked outside the top 25 at the beginning of the 2007 season. Since 1997, only 60 percent of the teams ranked in the preseason top 25 were still ranked at the end of the season. And nearly half (49 percent) of the teams in the top 10 fell out by season's end.

And here's the real reason for hope for those teams not among the top 25 today: In every season since 1997, at least two teams that started the season unranked finished among the top 10.

Mark Schlabach covers college football and men's college basketball for ESPN.com. You can contact him at schlabachma@yahoo.com.

I could not agree more. If SEC fan is going to complain, bring some stats other than attendance records

first, let me start off by saying that I am one of millions of college football fans who want a playoff. Will it happen? I think the NCAA stops it because we talk so much about it. no pub. is bad pub., right??

Now everyone knows, or should know that the rankings in college football are in large part a popularity contest.(case in point-USC dropping despite a win- becuse they are the Yankees of college football) Now here in Vegas, the casinos have their own top 25 poll. it is usually different from the Ap or even BCS polls. I think it is more accurate. Here is my list of top 25 teams. This is based on how these teams would be if played in a neutral site.

1.USC

2.LSU

3.Oklahoma

4.Cal

5.W.V.

6.Oregon

7.Ohio st.

8.Florida

9.S. Florida

10.Wisconsin

11.B.C

12.Hawaii

13.Arizona st.

14.Cincinatti

15.Georgia

16.Purdue

17.Michigan

18.Clemson

19.Kentucky

20.Nebraska

21.S. Carolina

22.UCLA

23.Rutgers

24.Va.Tech

25.K-State

Yes, this is my opinion. It could change. I only base this off of whaT i HAVE SEEN so far. All of us will bitch and moan that this conferance is better than that conferance. It annoys me to always hear that the pac-10 is illegit because we dont have a title game. SO WHAT!!! no one hAS EVER GIVEN ME A reason why beating a team twice in one year makes you cooler than someone who does not. I think, hope and pray LSU wins the SEC. They will probably have to beat Florida two times to do it. So, Auburn beat florida. Auburn is not that good. Really, they aren't. So why should I be impressed if LSU does them twice?? Yes, I champion the pac-10.Truth is, I think it is just as good as the SEC. Not better, not worse. You want a crappy conference, look at the big east or acc. I just want a LSU-USC national title game. I want to hear the excusses SEC fan lays when they lose. Hell, maybe if Cal toughens up their D, they could do LSU. Then what?? Then all of us on the west coast will smile.

I just moved back to beautiful las vegas,NV after living in Alabama for the last two years. An experiance, let me tell you. You see, I learned a lot about SEC fan down there. They hate the pac-10 (probably because we can actually score) and they constantly complain that they play in the toughest conferance in football. Well my friend, I will present an arguement why this is not so. lets start off w/ the state of mississippi. not to good at football. so thats 2 of 12 sec teams. Alabama. yes, thay got Sabin, but they still wont beat Auburn. Auburn cant beat anyone they should, but everyone they shouldn't. thats inconsistant. Vandy and Kentucky. who have they beaten? Who have they played? Louisville? Syracuse beat Louisville- so that means Louisville is not good. wow, 6 teams through, and I am not impressed. Arkansas. My boys kicked the crap out of them 2yrs straight, so would Cal, Oregon, UCLA, and ARZ st. Tenn. They got it handed to them by Cal. Score was closer than the game really was. Cal was too fast for them. thats 8 down 4 to go. Georgia and S.car. Its crap they are ahead of oregon in the polls, because they could not stay within 21 if they played. Again, what have these two schools done to anyone except fall out of the polls every year. Now down to the 2 big dogs of the SEC. Florida. won it all last year. I dont think they would have beat Usc, but we will never know. I cant say too much because they actually play decent non-conferance games every blue moon. LSU. I hope they win out. I think USC would run over them. Les Miles is the biggest crybaby in college football. They have beaten nobody this year , their non- conferance schedule is a joke, and yes, I will say it....I think they are over-rated. I hope these 2 teams play for the title, but southern cal has a tough road ahead. Cal and Oregon on the road scare me. They are both hungry, and they want to beat sc. In a way it might be good if they did, because it would help the pac-10.