[quote]MODOK wrote:
I do hope that we aren’t trying to discuss the superiority of the conferences AGAIN this year. This has been put to bed years ago; You have the SEC, then about 20 miles back you have everyone else.
Thats not saying tehre aren’t good TEAMS in other conferences, but top to bottom the SEC is by far the most competitive and intense (except Vandy). [/quote]
For now.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Woo Pig Sooie and Bobby Petrino!!! Just not this year! [/quote]
GO HOGS GO! I can’t wait to see how different Petrino is going to be from Nutt. I also wonder how Nutt is going to work out down in Mississippi, though not to interested.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
A pretty good article on conference strengths:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/08/11/conference.debate/index.html
I think the article is wrong.
The Big-10 and the PAC-10 are a distant 4th and 5th behind the ACC, SEC, and Big-12.
Just because they have the power of the press does not make the Big-10 and PAC-10 any better - just more visible. [/quote]
ACC?! Are you kidding? The ACC is one of the weakest conferences in football. I would put the Big East above the ACC any day. My ranking:
[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
A pretty good article on conference strengths:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/08/11/conference.debate/index.html
I think the article is wrong.
The Big-10 and the PAC-10 are a distant 4th and 5th behind the ACC, SEC, and Big-12.
Just because they have the power of the press does not make the Big-10 and PAC-10 any better - just more visible.
ACC?! Are you kidding? The ACC is one of the weakest conferences in football. I would put the Big East above the ACC any day. My ranking:
Hah, the big east over the ACC? All the best big east teams are in the ACC now.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hah, the big east over the ACC? All the best big east teams are in the ACC now.[/quote]
Yeah, and they suck ass right now. West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Louisville, etc. have all been in the headlines far more frequently of late than Miami, FSU, Virginia, and Va. Tech.
The best team in the ACC by far is Clemson and, judging from the past few years, they would have a hard time cracking into the top 5 in most of the other major conferences.
[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
A pretty good article on conference strengths:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/08/11/conference.debate/index.html
I think the article is wrong.
The Big-10 and the PAC-10 are a distant 4th and 5th behind the ACC, SEC, and Big-12.
Just because they have the power of the press does not make the Big-10 and PAC-10 any better - just more visible.
ACC?! Are you kidding? The ACC is one of the weakest conferences in football. I would put the Big East above the ACC any day. My ranking:
I didn’t even consider the Big East as a real conference.
You should take the Big East and the Mountain West off your list. They don’t count.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I didn’t even consider the Big East as a real conference.
You should take the Big East and the Mountain West off your list. They don’t count.
[/quote]
Well you’ve got a problem, then, because the best team from the Big East just wiped the floor with the best team from your second-best conference.
[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I didn’t even consider the Big East as a real conference.
You should take the Big East and the Mountain West off your list. They don’t count.
Well you’ve got a problem, then, because the best team from the Big East just wiped the floor with the best team from your second-best conference. [/quote]
???
[quote]rainjack wrote:
eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I didn’t even consider the Big East as a real conference.
You should take the Big East and the Mountain West off your list. They don’t count.
Well you’ve got a problem, then, because the best team from the Big East just wiped the floor with the best team from your second-best conference.
???
[/quote]
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/03/sports/collegefoot3.php
[quote]eic wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Hah, the big east over the ACC? All the best big east teams are in the ACC now.
Yeah, and they suck ass right now. West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Louisville, etc. have all been in the headlines far more frequently of late than Miami, FSU, Virginia, and Va. Tech. The best team in the ACC by far is Clemson and, judging from the past few years, they would have a hard time cracking into the top 5 in most of the other major conferences. [/quote]
That’s apparently not what the stats show. And VT has been good. Virginia didn’t just come to the ACC. BC did though, and they have been good too. You forgot to mention, Dare I say Wake. They have been good the past couple of years and are going to be again this year. I’d bring up GT being a good team too, but I’m biased as hell.
The very fact that these teams were so good in the big east and then get torn apart in the ACC might say something too.
So you would rather see Miami or F$U on your schedule than South Florida? I’d take my chances with SF any day.
Boomer Sooner, y’all. I’ve calendared the games on my Outlook so I get alerts to start drinking early…like, on Tuesday.
My freshman year, we went something like 3-8 or whatever…my senior year, we won the National Championship. And THAT is why I love college football.
[quote]eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:
eic wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I didn’t even consider the Big East as a real conference.
You should take the Big East and the Mountain West off your list. They don’t count.
Well you’ve got a problem, then, because the best team from the Big East just wiped the floor with the best team from your second-best conference.
???
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/03/sports/collegefoot3.php[/quote]
And Boise State beat the same damn team the year before that. UT-Norman has a problem winning bowl games.
Does that mean the MW is a top tier conference? No. It just means that West Va. got lucky.
ut-Norman? Haha, silly Rump Raider. The only team I truly hate is texas.
And yes, I hope we stay the hell out of the Fiesta Bowl this year.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
rainjack wrote:
malonetd wrote:
A pretty good article on conference strengths:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/08/11/conference.debate/index.html
I think the article is wrong.
The Big-10 and the PAC-10 are a distant 4th and 5th behind the ACC, SEC, and Big-12.
Just because they have the power of the press does not make the Big-10 and PAC-10 any better - just more visible.
Well good thing the formula uses actual numbers and stats. The only thing the “power of press” could have helped with in the article’s formula is final AP placing.
[/quote]
This is college football, pal. There are no facts - only subjective “polls”, a faulty “power rating”, and a two team “playoff”.
Don’t even start with the “actual number” bullshit. Until there is a playoff - it’s all a bunch of short-skirted cheer leading.
Rah. Rah.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s apparently not what the stats show. And VT has been good. Virginia didn’t just come from the ACC. BC did though, and they have been good too. You forgot to mention, Dare I say Wake.
They have been good the past couple of years and are going to be again this year. I’d bring up GT being a good team too, but I’m biased as hell.
The vary fact that these teams were so good in the big east and then get torn apart in the ACC might say something too.
So you would rather see Miami or F$U on your schedule than South Florida? I’d take my chances with SF any day.[/quote]
I’m not saying the Big East is the better conference in the history of college football, just that they are right now.
Virginia Tech was not good last year. They got dismantled by LSU, cruised through a bunch of easy (but overrated) ACC teams, then lost to a very overrated and mediocre Kansas in their bowl game. The ACC benefits from the same garbage that the Big 10 benefits from–an overrated conference.
Pundits were “ooohing” and “ahhing” over the Va. Tech/BC matchups, but all you were watching was two inept teams fail miserably at trying to kill each other.
And I refuse to believe that Miami has been roughed up by the likes of Duke, Maryland, Virginia, Wake Forest, and the other ACC teams. Miami is terrible on a national scale right now. They would get decimated in any other conference, not just the ACC.
And, to answer your question, (unless I am Florida) I would rather see FSU or Miami on my schedule than South Florida right now. Maybe not in a couple years, but at least right now. They are just bad teams, period.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
ut-Norman? Haha, silly Rump Raider. The only team I truly hate is texas.
And yes, I hope we stay the hell out of the Fiesta Bowl this year. [/quote]
I root for UT-Norman every time they play the t-sippers.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And Boise State beat the same damn team the year before that. UT-Norman has a problem winning bowl games.
Does that mean the MW is a top tier conference? No. It just means that West Va. got lucky.
[/quote]
Got lucky? You mean the team that was led by an interim head coach coaching his very first game?!?! Against a team that was no doubt determined not to be embarrassed AGAIN in the Fiesta Bowl? Boise State got lucky; W. Virginia outplayed Oklahoma. No serious follower of the game would disagree.
My point is that the teams at the top of the Big East were legitimate teams last year; the top teams in the ACC last year (Va. Tech and BC) had no victories over decent teams from other major conferences. The best that can be said is BC’s win 24-21 win over Mich. St. in their bowl game. Blech.
And, again, I’m not saying the Big East is the best conference in college football, just that it is better than the ACC, which has been especially (and uncharacteristically) shitty of late. So, allow me to revise my ranking for clarity:
You mentioned headlines being a good judge of conference strength, the disagree with “hype” around the ACC? Face it, Louisville and Rutgers have been all hype because they had always been so bad.
I’ll speak about the team I know best in the ACC GT. We are a historically severely underrated team. We are in the top 3 for bowl appearances, wins, and winning percentage (I know, no one cares, that’s my point).
We basically always finish higher in the rankings than we start. I think the ACC basketball overshadows the football program too much.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You mentioned headlines being a good judge of conference strength, the disagree with “hype” around the ACC? Face it, Louisville and Rutgers have been all hype because they had always been so bad.
I’ll speak about the team I know best in the ACC GT. We are a historically severely underrated team. We are in the top 3 for bowl appearances, wins, and winning percentage (I know, no one cares, that’s my point). We basically always finish higher in the rankings than we start. I think the ACC basketball overshadows the football program too much.[/quote]
There is some truth to what you said, but you have no right to defend the ACC when your best teams got destroyed playing decent teams out of conference. We simply have no reference point to judge the ACC against.
On the other hand, we can look at West Virginia from the Big East and recognize that they handle themselves against the best that other conferences have to offer. We can therefore make the educated inference that the teams which gave West Virginia a hard time (except for Pitt, lol) such as Rutgers and South Florida must also be legitimate teams. That’s all I’m saying.
Here is GT’s entire 2007 schedule. Please show me one thing on that page which indicates that they are a good team:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teams/schedule?teamId=59&year=2007
We soooo crushed Duke.
How bout us getting into I think it’s 13 straight bowl appearances. I was defending the historically overrated acc when I was talking about tech. Plus we were 1 and 4 against top 25, beating the apparent best ACC team.