Monday
Jun272005
There you go again...
Monday, June 27, 2005 at 08:42PM More dissection fun, here we go, this time another "Ask CFN" (hopefully this isn't another Monday ritual for us every year)-
Q:
I’m so sick of you always disrespecting the Pac 10 and always pumping
up the SEC and other conferences. The Pac 10 is every bit as good.
Didn’t Oregon State almost beat LSU at LSU? Didn’t Arizona State blow
out everyone’s favorite Iowa team? How about what USC has done to all
the big boys for the last three years? Your bias is getting ridiculous.
– JT
Just out of curiosity, I wonder why you didnt mention arizona
state was 3-0 against the big10, and also why you didnt mention Oregon
states dismantling of ND, and ND team that beat SEC power Tenessee AT
Tennessee and also beat Big 10 champ Michigan. Or that the pac10 had
the highest bowl winning % of any major BCS conference. Sorry to inform
you of the facts. – JA
A: First of all to all of those with a short memory, we were the only ones that consistently had Arizona State ranked ahead of Iowa last year after the blowout loss.First off, a caveat on the Pac-10/SEC schedule. In the Pac-10, its members play all but one conference member every year. In the SEC their members are in two divisions, made up of six teams, of mixed quality, and only face three of the other division's six teams. Any given SEC team may draw all the crappy teams from the other division, or all the good ones. Or a mix.
As I’ve asked most of the Pac 10 fans that fire-bombed me all week, this year, would you rather play a schedule with USC, Cal, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon and UCLA, or LSU, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Auburn and Alabama? You’re flat-out nuts if you’d rather play the SEC schedule this year. However …
1) I never said the Pac 10 sucks this year. In fact, I’d argue that it’ll battle the ACC as the most even league in the nation and overall, is probably going to be second behind the SEC. Once again though, Cal’s schedule (Sacramento State, at Washington, Illinois, at New Mexico State, Arizona, at UCLA, Oregon State, Washington State, at Oregon, USC, at Stanford) would be a dream for most BCS conference teams.
2) Oregon State didn’t beat LSU. Coffee is for closers only. Quit bringing up that loss. USC almost lost several games last year, but they didn’t. Losses are losses.
3) Notre Dame isn’t in the Pac 10, and the win over Tennessee has nothing to do with you. That was a weird game coming in the middle of the SEC schedule with the Vols losing their starting quarterback, Erik Ainge, early on. It’s easy to forget what a shell of its self that Irish team was for the bowl game after the Ty Willingham fiasco.
4) You may only bring up last year’s great Pac 10 performances if you also bring up UCLA’s loss to Wyoming, Oregon State’s loss to Boise State, and possibly the worst loss by a bowl caliber BCS conference team, Oregon’s home loss to Indiana.
5) And finally … just because USC is the best team in America, that doesn’t mean the Pac 10 is/was great.
So, no, every year, an SEC team is not playing LSU, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Auburn and Alabama. Chances are any of the SEC Big Six gets three freebies within its division annually, either in the East (Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina) or West (Arkansas, Missississippi, and Mississippi State). In reality the SEC schedule is not that bad.
The SEC's two best teams last year were LSU and Auburn, and the Pac-10's 4th-5th best team, Oregon State, was a missed extra point or three away from a win over LSU on the road in the season opener.
Furthermore, claims of the SEC's strength lately have been that the conference is tough week-to-week, but I think USC's season last year showed quite well that in fact the Pac-10 is one of the more prolific conferences, where even the bottom dwellers are having success against the elite teams. USC's toughest games last year were in fact, not from tough OOC foes like Oklahoma and Virginia Tech, but from within the conference, specifically Stanford (31-28), UCLA (29-25), Oregon State (28-20) and California (23-17).
Is the SEC really, really so great? No doubt there's an incredible amount of talent in the conference, but we think we're onto something with this sophistication thing, and there's a decent dose of it in the Pac-10. Not surprisingly, most of USC's recent challengers have been from within the much maligned Pac-10.
Just something to consider...
To answer the next submission by PF, Cal's schedule is not a dream. Their OOC slate is inexcuseable (Sacramento State, Illinois, New Mexico State). But, they will get terrific challenges from UCLA, Oregon State, Oregon, and USC.
Next---Yes, losses are losses, but the Oregon State game is quite worthy of bringing up. It was indicative of a weakness with the idea or belief that the SEC is unchallengeably superior to every conference. The public perception in general is that the Pac-10 is a weak conference, but when you find apparent huge mismatches like Oregon State @ LSU in a season opener where LSU basically was the lesser of the two teams on the field, you can't just continue on claiming that the SEC is so all superior.
As far as Notre Dame/Tennessee, most pundits treat Notre Dame as an impotent has-been, its few wins coming against softies on its schedule. Then it beats Big Ten power Michigan and SEC power Tennessee and there's just no explanation as to why, glossed over as a weird game because the Tennessee quarterback got injured. I saw Rick Clausen have a bad game against Notre Dame in relief, but he had a terrific finish after that game. In fact, he looked more impressive leading that team than Erik Ainge. In other words, by accident the Vols got to play their better quarterback against Notre Dame. They still failed. They were allegedly the SEC's #2 or #3 team last year, but we're supposed to ignore that game, as if it's no chink in the SEC's armor? Um...
Next, the Pac-10 had its strange losses last year. When we look at matchups we have to be somewhat honest about some of these games, though. UCLA should not have lost to Wyoming. That was embarrassing for them. Oregon State should have gotten smoked by Boise State, Boise's great! Pete's being silly with that one. And Oregon should not have lost to Indiana. It's weird, but they played much better against Oklahoma than they did against Indiana. Oregon spent much of the game in Oklahoma territory, but could not score. Then Adrian Peterson came out with one of his best runs all of last year, breaking a tackle as he sprinted up the middle, then making this smooth arc bouncing towards the sidelines and cruising effortlessly 40 yards into the end zone.
Two out of those three games were bad. Every conference has bad games, but we have to judge some of these appropriately. For example, Tennessee/Notre Dame!
Lastly, I don't know how to respond to that one. I treat the Pac-10 as a legitemate conference, it has one great team in USC, another great or near-great team in California, and another top 10-15 team in ASU, as well as contenders Oregon State and UCLA. In addition, the conference is due for some reshuffling soon, that's been the tradition, so maybe a return is in line for fomer top 10 occupant Washington State, or maybe Walt Harris can create some magic at Stanford.
In many ways, the Pac-10 is similar to the ACC. The ACC is competitive top to bottom, it has a nice balance all the way through (as Pete Fiutak accurately noted), and its members shuffle from year to year. NC State was doing great three years ago, but now UVA is one of the conference's better squads. And two years from now, things will once again look different.
One of the issues with the SEC is that its Big Six never change, never moving from the leadership. Those Big Six are Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn and Alabama. The bottom six (South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi and Mississippi State) are so noncompetitive that not a single member has won the SEC since 1977 when Alabama and Kentucky shared the crown. The last outright bottom six conference champion was Mississippi way back in 1963! That doesn't look very competitive to me.
It is CFR's belief that annually, the conferences vary greatly in relative strength, but that there is no true dominant conference. CFR also believes it is dangerous, reckless, and so far factually inaccurate to annoint a conference without question as dominant and above its peers. For a while now if any conference has gotten that label, it's been the SEC and thus we direct some of our energies to challenge the notion.
Reader Comments (26)
At least the SEC has a "Big Six", most conferences except for the ACC have (2-3) teams that consistently dominate.
i.e. pac 10; since 1959 USC has won 22 pac-10 championships, UCLA 11, and Washington 11. Next in line is Stanford with 4. Wheres the balance? Where's all this competiveness in these other conferences. Do you actually research any of this stuff you write about?
Every conference has the bottom feeders. That's not anything specific to the SEC.
Also, you noted that Arkansas, South Carolina, and Ole Miss are non-competitive. They may consistently get beaten by the top SEC teams but, the games are competitive. And, those teams have handled some OOC foes pretty well in the last couple of years.
i.e. Arkansas 41-14 over Boise, 27-14 over Missouri, and 38-28 over Texas in Austin! South Carolina 32-13 over Boise, and 31-28 over Ohio State. Ole Miss 27-23 over Nebraska, and 31-28 over Okl. State.
Do not be surprised my friend if USC struggles with Arkansas this Fall. USC should thank their lucky stars that this game isn't in Little Rock!
For example, every team in the Pac-10 except for California has won the conference crown in the last 13 or 14 years. As big as Michigan and Ohio State are, teams like Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and Iowa have all recently won the Big Ten. It's a competitive conference, so teams are NOT getting easy wins from the same old doormats year in and year out padding their record. That's the point.
I don't foresee USC struggling with Arkansas. What's Arkansas going to do? Throw the forward pass? I'm pretty sure USC's seen that before.
Back to the bottom feeders---they are persistent to the SEC, since they NEVER LEAVE THE BOTTOM. If you can't grasp that I can't help you.
LSU was the SEC's #2 because they were the second best team, besides Auburn, capable of facing legitemate national competition.
Ohio State crushed Michigan last year, but Michigan was the conference's best team, regardless. Part of the college football is matchups, since so many teams play differently, unlike the NFL.
So, over the last 45-50 years, USC, UCLA, and Washington have won the pac 10 for 44 of those years and Standford 4 more. Doesn't look to me that anyone else has gotten lucky too much. Those bottom feeders in the SEC may not win the SEC but, they do play competitive games. They don't leave the bottom because they are competing against 5-6 top teams, not 2-3 top teams. That's my point.
I think the original point trying to be made by CFN was which was the strongest conference, not whose conference was the most competitive. Just because a conference is "competitive" (and I'm not conceding that the pac 10 is any more so than others) that doesn't equate to strength does it?
What national competition did LSU face? What are you basing that statement on? So, Georgia beats LSU 45-16 but LSU is more capable of facing "national competition"? LSU faced Oregon State and Iowa last year. They lost one of those games and should have lost the other one.
I don't think I need the help you're trying to sell.
Since 1959, Alabama 16, Georgia 8, Tennessee 7, Florida 6, Auburn 5, LSU 5, and Ole Miss 3.
More Balanced?
What's the point? Don't focus on singular plays when you make generalizations. That's what the MSM does, and I expect more from CFR.
Well, the reason Ainge got hurt was because the Volunteer OL COULDN'T PROTECT HIM.
This is the same OL that is now supposed to be one of the best in the country.
Is it because the SEC's offensive style hasn't changed since 1959?
Let's stick to modern times, since the title games have been in place.
In those 13 years, 5 SEC teams have won the titles. In the Pac-10, 9 teams have won titles. The one that didn't--Cal--managed to go 10-2 last year.
Does that make the Pac-10 more competitive? Sure. After all, if UGA couldnt' rely on Vandy being Vandy every year, they might actually have to prepare for that game once in a while.
And for the record, there are at least four concurring reasons for why Ainge got hurt:
1) bonehead play call
2) bad shotgun snap
3) Ainge tries to pick ball up
4) no protection
And if any Tennessee fan does make such an excuse, it's not much different than a Gator saying that they lost to Tennessee because of the Dallas Baker penalty. The Gators lost that one because they couldn't stop the Vols when it counted.
A conference being competitive doesn't make it good. The pac 10 has a woeful head to head record against every other major conference, that is unless you want to pick out some 3 year span and prove me wrong.
How would know about anything about the offensive play of any SEC team. Probably the last time you seen one play was on your Play Station or X-Box.
Anyway, the original article by CFN was about which conference was the strongest, not the most competitive. Admin Resource started this competitiveness issue, By the way, are you and she/he one in the same?
No, they don't leave the bottom because they're that bad. Take 2002, for example. If ever there was a year for a bottom feeder to rise up and challenge for the conference title or the top ten, this was it. You had four of the Big Six with at least four losses, and three of them ended the season with 5 losses-- a bunch of mediocre teams who beat up each other in conference. Arkansas had its best season in five years and went to the CCG only to get pasted by a very good Georgia team.
But how did the rest of the Bottom Six fare in a down SEC? Ole Miss went 3-5 in the SEC, MSU went 0-8, South Carolina went 3-5, Vandy went 0-8, and Kentucky went 3-5. And there were only two good teams at the top, and Alabama wasn't even that good. They benefitted from a weak SEC and a mostly cream puff nonconference schedule (they lost to Oklahoma by ten, but beat Middle Tenessee, Southern Miss and Hawaii by a whopping 23 points total).
You made one of my points with your last post. You can pick out any span of time and prove almost any point. Just like TrojanRuss did by picking out 1 year (2002). It's true that teams like
Vandy and Kentucky never compete for the title but, beating those teams gets you no advantage over anyone else in the SEC as they beat them too.
Also, let's look at your so-called competitive pac 10 TrojanRuss. Since these teams have been in the pac 10; Oregon State (2) Championships, Wash. State (2), Calif. (1), ASU (1), and Ariz. (1). Looks like the Kentuckys, Vandys, and So.Car.s to me. Your conference has been dominated by (3) teams! That is unless you want to pick out your last ever how many years.
(This is from the PAC 10 with Boise St. and Fresno St. thrown in for good measure.)
Round - # of selections
1st - 0
2nd - 0
3rd - 3
4th - 2
5th - 1
6th - 4
7th - 3
Grand Total of......13 non-USC defensive players drafted. That is some great defensive talent out beyond the Rockies. Could this be why the "gimmick" offenses score so efficiently?
(I used numbers from ESPN's draft board. If they are wrong, blame them.)
And as for the NFL, we're talking college football here, you're straying from the real discussion.
The NFL is basically all about talent, every team is more or less equal in terms of on-field talent (unlike college football). But the NFL also runs different offenses and defenses. With parity the NFL has dumbed itself down a bit, allowing for quarterbacks with less experience in passing offenses to have a chance. The game is more of a chess match, with some SEC/vanilla elements like a pounding running game and short passes.
There's a style of play difference between the college and NFL.
And nobody disagrees that the SEC is stocked with talent. It's why Florida will soon be alongside USC as THE elite teams in CFB, it has the talent to match USC, as well as the scheme.
FWIW, it looks like Pete Carroll took over a graveyard of talent at USC, and has not had many players drafted until now (aside from obvious elite players like Carson Palmer, the #1 pick, Mike Williams, Troy Polamalu, Kenechi Udeze and Jacob Rodgers). Looking at their roster now, I think that will change quickly.
The arguments made about the Big Six were that talent isn't vitally important to being an elite team in CFB. You do need a MODICUM of talent, particularly guys at key positions such as quarterback or skill position talent (WRs, TBs, DBs). Most of the Big Six qualify there, but have such great schemes they are moving ahead of the pack in CFB.
You guys are really struggling to grasp what's being said. Try re-reading that one HP post a few dozen or hundred times and let it soak in. Don't take offense, it's not like an SEC team can't join the ranks. Hell, Florida is very very soon. Georgia can, too, although I'm not sure Mark Richt has an idea how to do that, but maybe if some other coach comes along, then yeah, he may do the same.
It's not a geographic thing, either, although most of the Big Six coaches' backgrounds at some point appear to have resided in the smaller MWC/WAC schools that are breeding grounds for innovative and successful schemes. But these schools themselves are all over, from West to East we have USC, California, Utah, Boise State, Louisville and Florida.
The next likely candidate on that list is Bowling Green.
You describe the new schemes as innovative and far-advanced intellectually. What does Norm Chow have to say about his playbook?
"To give them a thick playbook and tell them to study every page, over and over, we're fooling ourselves," Chow said. "And besides, I'm not that smart anyway. So I have no choice but to make things easier."
http://espn.go.com/ncf/preview01/s/chow.html
Norm Chow obviously thinks he is more advanced than other offensive coordinators.
As far as the "innovative" offenses, you (or really HP) pick and chose which teams you would include in your analysis. The schema of the six teams are not similar. Louisville was very similar to USC and Cal. Utah and Boise State were similar. Those two groups do not really have anything in common.
If you think running out of the shotgun, having a short to mid-range passing game, and putting up a lot of points is innovative...I dare you to look up the Florida State Seminoles of the 1990's. You may find that your new-found offensive break-throughs aren't really so new.
Fina