The Moz 69 Posted December 7, 2006 2001 -- Oklahome - FSU - FSU was going to walk in a title right ? FSU was thought to win easily. 2003 - Miami - OSU - Miami was supposed to destroy OSU right ? 2005 - Oklahoma - USC -- OU was supposed to roll over USC. 2006 - UT - USC -- USC was supposed to win ( though not as heavily favored as the othet teams I mentioned ) . Florida has something that will give OSU a nightmare. GReat team spped and pursuit. I think they will be able to get to Troy Smith more than people think and will cut down on his scrambles. While Leak hasn't played great so far the kid has alot of talent and can have a huge game. Also take inot account Florida played in the toughest conference in football. all this Florida sucks talk is from bitter Michigan fans and dumbasses. OSU mihgt win but I gaurentee it will be a close game prediction OSU 17 Florida 24 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lions_or_Die 0 Posted December 7, 2006 You titled the thread why Florida will win and then you predict OSU to win? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elayton 0 Posted December 7, 2006 Isn't the title of your post "why Florida will win the BCS title game" yet you pick OSU? Cheers! GO BUCKS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoBucky1 2 Posted December 7, 2006 Weird, the title says 'Why Florida will win the game", yet you pick OSU to win it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 7, 2006 elayton and GoBucky1 catch on quick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted December 7, 2006 2001 -- Oklahome - FSU - FSU was going to walk in a title right ? FSU was thought to win easily. 2003 - Miami - OSU - Miami was supposed to destroy OSU right ? 2005 - Oklahoma - USC -- OU was supposed to roll over USC. 2006 - UT - USC -- USC was supposed to win ( though not as heavily favored as the othet teams I mentioned ) . Florida has something that will give OSU a nightmare. GReat team spped and pursuit. I think they will be able to get to Troy Smith more than people think and will cut down on his scrambles. While Leak hasn't played great so far the kid has alot of talent and can have a huge game. Also take inot account Florida played in the toughest conference in football. all this Florida sucks talk is from bitter Michigan fans and dumbasses. OSU mihgt win but I gaurentee it will be a close game prediction OSU 24 Florida 17 Troy Smith can use his legs but doesn't have to. He killed Michigan with the pass and not much running at all. Pick your poison Florida. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cribdog 0 Posted December 7, 2006 The point spread is 7.5, way to go out on a limb and predict a final score a half point off of the spread! I guess all the bookies in the world agree with you...idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted December 7, 2006 Also take inot account Florida played in the toughest conference in football. So if the SEC gets hammered in most of their bowl games, can people please stop saying this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted December 7, 2006 i meant florida 24 osu 17 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted December 7, 2006 i meant florida 24 osu 17 Go Gators!!!! I don't know if we'll win or not, but I agree with you that it'll probably be low scoring and a close margin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted December 7, 2006 Also take inot account Florida played in the toughest conference in football. Completely subjective opinion there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted December 7, 2006 2001 -- Oklahome - FSU - FSU was going to walk in a title right ? FSU was thought to win easily. 2003 - Miami - OSU - Miami was supposed to destroy OSU right ? 2005 - Oklahoma - USC -- OU was supposed to roll over USC. 2006 - UT - USC -- USC was supposed to win ( though not as heavily favored as the othet teams I mentioned ) . Florida has something that will give OSU a nightmare. GReat team spped and pursuit. I think they will be able to get to Troy Smith more than people think and will cut down on his scrambles. While Leak hasn't played great so far the kid has alot of talent and can have a huge game. Also take inot account Florida played in the toughest conference in football. all this Florida sucks talk is from bitter Michigan fans and dumbasses. OSU mihgt win but I gaurentee it will be a close game prediction OSU 17 Florida 24 Florida's conference and schedule is sooooo tough...that it is just marginally better than Michigan's? I doubt anything Florida has will give them a nightmare. They saw a much better defense when they played Michigan...and a much better offense that day two. Leak may have talent...but he is terrible. And Teebow is worse and will not be cranking off those big runs against a defense like OSU. OSU scores way more than 17 against the defense...and UF really does not sniff 24 points. So if the SEC gets hammered in most of their bowl games, can people please stop saying this? Especially when its OSU hammering Florida PSU hammering TN and Wisc hammering Arkansas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BadMojo11 0 Posted December 7, 2006 Florida WILL NOT win this game. Mickey Mouse offense of Urban Legend exposed. OSU 35 UF 14 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted December 7, 2006 Florida's conference and schedule is sooooo tough...that it is just marginally better than Michigan's? I doubt anything Florida has will give them a nightmare. They saw a much better defense when they played Michigan...and a much better offense that day two. Leak may have talent...but he is terrible. And Teebow is worse and will not be cranking off those big runs against a defense like OSU. OSU scores way more than 17 against the defense...and UF really does not sniff 24 points. Especially when its OSU hammering Florida PSU hammering TN and Wisc hammering Arkansas. As much as I am a proponent of people not buying into the "Mighty SEC" hype, let's not get crazy with that Wisconsin hammering Arkansas prediction... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpcdds 26 Posted December 7, 2006 So if the SEC gets hammered in most of their bowl games, can people please stop saying this? You don't have to wait until the bowl games...they aren't that good of a conference....period!!!! Everyone says they are the best because of the rankings....but if you look deeper at their schedules...not all that impressive out of conference... Their conference's best win was Tenn's win over a decent California team...next in line would be LSU's blowout over a below 500 pac 10 team in arizona... After that....auburn beat a below 500 pac 10 Wash st team and Alabama beat Hawaii...Not overly impressive if you ask me... Now let's take a look at their conf losses...Mississippi lost to both Missouri and Wake...Kentucky...a 500 SEC team...in a conference that is "so tough" but still managed 4 wins lost to Louisville by 31 pts...and then we have lovely Arkansas...yes the 3 loss team which when Florida beat them put the gators past UM...lost to USC by 36 pts.... Other than that the conference mostly played teams like Buffalo, Florida international, Texas st and Western Carolina... The bowls will only confirm what we already know...the SEC is not that good... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted December 7, 2006 lolerskates OSU 42 - UF 17 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 7, 2006 Their conference's best win was Tenn's win over a decent California team...next in line would be LSU's blowout over a below 500 pac 10 team in arizona... After that....auburn beat a below 500 pac 10 Wash st team and Alabama beat Hawaii...Not overly impressive if you ask me... ... Other than that the conference mostly played teams like Buffalo, Florida international, Texas st and Western Carolina... That Cal team slaughtered Minnesota. People often judge the SEC based on the USC/Arkansas game alone. But consider: Tennessee was more impressive against Cal than USC was. Also, LSU beat Arizona by a lot more than USC did, and Auburn beat Wash St by 20 more points than USC did. Combine that info with the injuries Arkansas had during the USC game, and the reasonable conclusion is that the USC/Arkansas game was an anomaly. -The SEC was 41-7 out of conference -The Big Ten was 33-11 out of conference -The SEC and Big Ten each played 8 games against I-AA teams. -The SEC was 9-6 against BCS conference teams. In 9 of those games, the SEC team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. -The Big Ten was 7-6 against BCS conference teams (including Notre Dame). In 7 of those games, the Big 10 team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. -Excluding Ole Miss and Miss St (who Florida didn't play), the SEC was 37-3 out of conference. -Excluding Purdue and Illinois (who Michigan didn't play), the Big Ten was 29-7 out of conference. -Excluding Ole Miss and Miss St (who Florida didn't play), the SEC was 9-3 against BCS conference teams. In 6 of those games, the SEC team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. -Excluding Purdue and Illinois (who Michigan didn't play), the Big Ten was 7-3 against BCS conference teams (including Notre Dame). In only 4 of those games, the Big 10 team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. The SEC performed better in non-conference games, both against BCS conference teams and non-BCS conference teams. Despite the fact that, in a higher percentage of the SEC's games against teams from other BCS conferences, the opponent had a better conference rank. The numbers are even more compelling when you consider which in-conference opponents the Gators and Wolverines faced. Obviously, the comparison would be even worse for the Buckeyes than for the Wolverines, as OSU faced Illinois (1-3 NC) instead of Wisconsin (4-0 NC). Note that the Big Ten lost 5 games to mid-major and I-AA teams. The SEC lost 1. Excluding Purdue/Illinois/OleMiss/MissSt, who UM and UF didn't play, the Big Ten lost 4 games to mid-major and I-AA teams. The SEC lost 0. Which speaks to the depth of the SEC, a key factor in the difficulty of surviving the conference schedule. A further note on conference depth: Wisconsin beat all of it's lower-ranked conference opponents, but its non-conference schedule included a I-AA team and three mid majors who each ranked in the bottom half of their conference. The Wisconsin game was a critical boost to Michigan's computer rankings. (This is because Wisconsin's record means a lot to Michigan's strength of schedule, and Wisconsin's strength of schedule means very little to Michigan's strength of schedule.) So Michigan really has Wisconsin to thank for not getting beaten in the computer polls, yet all Wisconsin proved is that they can defeat the crap at the bottom of mid majors and the bottom of the Big Ten itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grind 0 Posted December 7, 2006 You don't have to wait until the bowl games...they aren't that good of a conference....period!!!! Everyone says they are the best because of the rankings....but if you look deeper at their schedules...not all that impressive out of conference... Their conference's best win was Tenn's win over a decent California team...next in line would be LSU's blowout over a below 500 pac 10 team in arizona... After that....auburn beat a below 500 pac 10 Wash st team and Alabama beat Hawaii...Not overly impressive if you ask me... Now let's take a look at their conf losses...Mississippi lost to both Missouri and Wake...Kentucky...a 500 SEC team...in a conference that is "so tough" but still managed 4 wins lost to Louisville by 31 pts...and then we have lovely Arkansas...yes the 3 loss team which when Florida beat them put the gators past UM...lost to USC by 36 pts.... Other than that the conference mostly played teams like Buffalo, Florida international, Texas st and Western Carolina... The bowls will only confirm what we already know...the SEC is not that good... This is exactly what I think. What best way would a conference hide the fact that the teams are mediocre when compared to teams in other conferences? Not play any legit non-conference games. The SEC is a scam. PERIOD!!! The days of one-dimensional teams (Oklahoma wishbone formation and the old Nebraska teams) are long gone and can't compete in most legit conferences. Not so in the SEC. One-dimensional teams like Auburn and Arkansas, both teams that have NO QB, thrive in this mediocre conference. That conference should be featured on VH1 "Stuck in the 80's". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoBucky1 2 Posted December 7, 2006 As much as I am a proponent of people not buying into the "Mighty SEC" hype, let's not get crazy with that Wisconsin hammering Arkansas prediction... Agreed...27-20 Bucky! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpcdds 26 Posted December 7, 2006 That Cal team slaughtered Minnesota. People often judge the SEC based on the USC/Arkansas game alone. But consider: Tennessee was more impressive against Cal than USC was. Also, LSU beat Arizona by a lot more than USC did, and Auburn beat Wash St by 20 more points than USC did. Combine that info with the injuries Arkansas had during the USC game, and the reasonable conclusion is that the USC/Arkansas game was an anomaly. -The SEC was 41-7 out of conference -The Big Ten was 33-11 out of conference -The SEC and Big Ten each played 8 games against I-AA teams. -The SEC was 9-6 against BCS conference teams. In 9 of those games, the SEC team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. -The Big Ten was 7-6 against BCS conference teams (including Notre Dame). In 7 of those games, the Big 10 team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. -Excluding Ole Miss and Miss St (who Florida didn't play), the SEC was 37-3 out of conference. -Excluding Purdue and Illinois (who Michigan didn't play), the Big Ten was 29-7 out of conference. -Excluding Ole Miss and Miss St (who Florida didn't play), the SEC was 9-3 against BCS conference teams. In 6 of those games, the SEC team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. -Excluding Purdue and Illinois (who Michigan didn't play), the Big Ten was 7-3 against BCS conference teams (including Notre Dame). In only 4 of those games, the Big 10 team had a lower conference rank than their non-conference opponent. The SEC performed better in non-conference games, both against BCS conference teams and non-BCS conference teams. Despite the fact that, in a higher percentage of the SEC's games against teams from other BCS conferences, the opponent had a better conference rank. The numbers are even more compelling when you consider which in-conference opponents the Gators and Wolverines faced. Obviously, the comparison would be even worse for the Buckeyes than for the Wolverines, as OSU faced Illinois (1-3 NC) instead of Wisconsin (4-0 NC). Note that the Big Ten lost 5 games to mid-major and I-AA teams. The SEC lost 1. Excluding Purdue/Illinois/OleMiss/MissSt, who UM and UF didn't play, the Big Ten lost 4 games to mid-major and I-AA teams. The SEC lost 0. Which speaks to the depth of the SEC, a key factor in the difficulty of surviving the conference schedule. A further note on conference depth: Wisconsin beat all of it's lower-ranked conference opponents, but its non-conference schedule included a I-AA team and three mid majors who each ranked in the bottom half of their conference. The Wisconsin game was a critical boost to Michigan's computer rankings. (This is because Wisconsin's record means a lot to Michigan's strength of schedule, and Wisconsin's strength of schedule means very little to Michigan's strength of schedule.) So Michigan really has Wisconsin to thank for not getting beaten in the computer polls, yet all Wisconsin proved is that they can defeat the crap at the bottom of mid majors and the bottom of the Big Ten itself. Although you're diligent in your research...I never claimed the Big 10 was the elite conference....not once!!! My point was the SEC is overrated...Your best nonconference win was California...and Kentucky lost to Louisville by 31 yet managed 4 wins in the greatest conference in the land? And big tough Ark...the team that vaulted Fla into the NCG....has 3 losses and was beaten by USC by 36 pts...these are points you cannot argue.... could it be that the SEC is made up of 5-6 really good teams but no great ones and the big ten is made up of 2 great teams and 1 really good team??? I think it might!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 7, 2006 Although you're diligent in your research...I never claimed the Big 10 was the elite conference....not once!!! I never said that you did....not once!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grind 0 Posted December 7, 2006 Although you're diligent in your research...I never claimed the Big 10 was the elite conference....not once!!! My point was the SEC is overrated...Your best nonconference win was California...and Kentucky lost to Louisville by 31 yet managed 4 wins in the greatest conference in the land? And big tough Ark...the team that vaulted Fla into the NCG....has 3 losses and was beaten by USC by 36 pts...these are points you cannot argue.... could it be that the SEC is made up of 5-6 really good teams but no great ones and the big ten is made up of 2 great teams and 1 really good team??? I think it might!! I hope you aren't including Auburn and Arkansas as on of the "5-6 real good teams" the SEC has to offer. Any team that can only run (or can only pass) shouldn't be included in any discussion among good teams in college football in this decade. The days of being one-dimensional and good ended in the 80's except of course in the SEC. Has Auburn's QB or Arkansas' QB complete a pass this year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 7, 2006 could it be that the SEC is made up of 5-6 really good teams but no great ones and the big ten is made up of 2 great teams and 1 really good team??? I think it might!! That's certainly a common perception in the midwest. But the non-conference performance of the conferences suggests that the truth could just as easily be this: The SEC is 2 great teams (hint: Arkansas is not one of them) and 4-5 really good teams, whereas the Big Ten is 2 great teams and 1 pretty good team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted December 7, 2006 There are so many little facts that people can look up to argue on behalf of any given conference... The bottom line is that, upon an objective analysis, the SEC is hardly superior to the other majors; they are quite comparable, really. So when they play the "tough in conference" schedule card, it's built on a false premise, and is thus invalid. It's BS. The one little tidbit that I do find humorous is that out of those 48 out of conference games for the SEC, something like all but 7 of them were home games; as a result, 6 SEC teams did not even play an out of conference game on the road... (Expect the typical SEC homegame-money making reply to that tidbit). Let's not dog on the SEC too much. They are a good, solid conference. Just like the other majors... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted December 7, 2006 Agreed...27-20 Bucky! Fock 'em, Bucky! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpcdds 26 Posted December 7, 2006 That Cal team slaughtered Minnesota. Using that philosophy...then that Kentucky team we discussed who lost to Louisville by 31...and who happen to only beat Louisiana-Monroe by 2 (they gave up 40pts)....was the same Kentucky team that beat Georgia...that Georgia team blew out Auburn...which happens to be the same Auburn team that beat Florida.....HMMMMM....interesting..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 7, 2006 Using that philosophy...then that Kentucky team we discussed who lost to Louisville by 31...and who happen to only beat Louisiana-Monroe by 2 (they gave up 40pts)....was the same Kentucky team that beat Georgia...that Georgia team blew out Auburn...which happens to be the same Auburn team that beat Florida.....HMMMMM....interesting..... It took you almost three hours to come up with that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shovelheadt 71 Posted December 7, 2006 I think they will be able to get to Troy Smith more than people think and will cut down on his scrambles. Check out his rushing stats compared to last year. Flawed theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpcdds 26 Posted December 7, 2006 It took you almost three hours to come up with that? THAT was easy...about 2 minutes...the hard part was writing it simple enough for you to understand... What...no answer for it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 7, 2006 Oh yeah, a lot of fans were crying Big Blue Tears about one of the coaches voting Florida #1, supposedly it was an example of dubious voting to screw the Wolverines. Here's an article about that #1 vote: Coach who voted Florida #1 'Can't stand Florida' - http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2006/12/04/1204walden.html THAT was easy...about 2 minutes...the hard part was writing it simple enough for you to understand... What...no answer for it? No answer for what? Your post was a debacle. If you wanted to make the point that Tennessee playing Cal better than Minnesota did doesn't mean much, that's fine. But I would have thought you could have done so much more effectively than you did with your ridiculous 5-game chain of "so-and-so beat so-and-so who beat..." example. And, I would have thought you could come up with it a lot sooner than three hours after the first time you had replied to the same post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpcdds 26 Posted December 8, 2006 Oh yeah, a lot of fans were crying Big Blue Tears about one of the coaches voting Florida #1, supposedly it was an example of dubious voting to screw the Wolverines. Here's an article about that #1 vote: Coach who voted Florida #1 'Can't stand Florida' - http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2006/12/04/1204walden.html No answer for what? Your post was a debacle. If you wanted to make the point that Tennessee playing Cal better than Minnesota did doesn't mean much, that's fine. But I would have thought you could have done so much more effectively than you did with your ridiculous 5-game chain of "so-and-so beat so-and-so who beat..." example. And, I would have thought you could come up with it a lot sooner than three hours after the first time you had replied to the same post. Chill man...didn't see it the first time...plus i'm trying to work here.... Look..i just don't think the SEC is as strong as some believe....their whole strength is based on playing eachother...which to me doesn't prove they are the best... Their out of conference schedule wins aren't nearly as impressive as their out of conference loses are bad...which should have been a bigger factor in their consideration as the"best conference"....which in fact helped determine Florida's bid into the NC game... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 8, 2006 [The SEC's] out of conference schedule wins aren't nearly as impressive as their out of conference loses are bad... That's garbage. You noted 4 supposedly-bad losses: -2 losses by Mississippi, who finished 10th in the SEC. They lost to the #1 team in the ACC and the and the #5 team in the Big 12. And, Florida didn't even play Mississippi. -A loss by Kentucky, who finished 7th in the SEC. They lost to the #1 team in the Big East. -Arkansas, the 3rd best team in the SEC, lost at home to USC, the #1 team in the Pac 10. And as I already stated, that performance was largely due to injuries. An argument which is supported by the fact that the other SEC teams who faced the Pac 10, played better against that Pac 10 team than USC did when USC played them. Now let's look at some of the wins: -LSU annihilated Wazzou, Tennessee dominated Cal, and Auburn stomped Washington St, as already mentioned -South Carolina, who finished 8th in the SEC, won at Clemson, who finished tied for 5th in the ACC. -Georgia, who finished 6th in the SEC, beat Georgia Tech, who finished 2nd in the ACC. Those wins are absolutely better than those losses are bad, by a longshot. And again, unlike Michigan's Big Ten opponents, none of Florida's SEC opponents lost to any mid major or I-AA teams. I'm sure you think beating Notre Dame and Texas is plenty to validate the Big Ten. I'm not buying it. The next time Notre Dame plays defense, it will be the first time. They're overrated every year, they've lost something like 7 bowl games in a row by an average of 17 points, and it's not gonna get any better for them when they play LSU. And Texas was starting a freshman QB in only his second college game, he'd have been stomped by any of two dozen teams in the country on that day. Sadly, for OSU and Michigan, that's their whole resume: Beating Notre Dame and Texas... oh and Wisconsin, who beat absolutely nobody. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted December 8, 2006 -Arkansas, the 3rd best team in the SEC, lost at home to USC, the #1 team in the Pac 10. And as I already stated, that performance was largely due to injuries. An argument which is supported by the fact that the other SEC teams who faced the Pac 10, played better against that Pac 10 team than USC did when USC played them. Aww the the old injury card rears it's ugly face... Followed by the classic "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" team A played better versus team B who beat team C hypothetical validation... Good stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king41 0 Posted December 8, 2006 I hate OSU and their hillbilly fans....but Florida... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 8, 2006 Face it, you've got nothing, Laurence. Laughter, crying faces, and no case. The SEC may not be head and shoulders above the other conferences like some would have you believe. But this much is clear: -The SEC is at least as good as the Big Ten -Florida played an extremely tough schedule, at least as tough as Michigan's, and is deserving of the shot they're getting at the BCS title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2 Posted December 8, 2006 You've got nothing, Laurence. So are you suggesting you think your little hypothetical scenario is valid??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpcdds 26 Posted December 8, 2006 That's garbage. You noted 4 supposedly-bad losses: -2 losses by Mississippi, who finished 10th in the SEC. They lost to the #1 team in the ACC and the and the #5 team in the Big 12. And, Florida didn't even play Mississippi. -A loss by Kentucky, who finished 7th in the SEC. They lost to the #1 team in the Big East. -Arkansas, the 3rd best team in the SEC, lost at home to USC, the #1 team in the Pac 10. And as I already stated, that performance was largely due to injuries. An argument which is supported by the fact that the other SEC teams who faced the Pac 10, played better against that Pac 10 team than USC did when USC played them. Now let's look at some of the wins: -LSU annihilated Wazzou, Tennessee dominated Cal, and Auburn stomped Washington St, as already mentioned -South Carolina, who finished 8th in the SEC, won at Clemson, who finished tied for 5th in the ACC. -Georgia, who finished 6th in the SEC, beat Georgia Tech, who finished 2nd in the ACC. Those wins are absolutely better than those losses are bad, by a longshot. And again, unlike Michigan's Big Ten opponents, none of Florida's SEC opponents lost to any mid major or I-AA teams. I'm sure you think beating Notre Dame and Texas is plenty to validate the Big Ten. I'm not buying it. The next time Notre Dame plays defense, it will be the first time. They're overrated every year, they've lost something like 7 bowl games in a row by an average of 17 points, and it's not gonna get any better for them when they play LSU. And Texas was starting a freshman QB in only his second college game, he'd have been stomped by any of two dozen teams in the country on that day. Sadly, for OSU and Michigan, that's their whole resume: Beating Notre Dame and Texas... oh and Wisconsin, who beat absolutely nobody. If you want to include both wins vs unranked Clemson and unranked Georgia Tech and count them is big wins....then UM's win over a team like Penn State should be given validity...those 3 teams are about the same... I think wins over ND and Texas look better than wins over California/Arizona/clemson/GT and Wash st combined....the only ranked team is California at about 19...like i said earlier...not very impressive in my book.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted December 8, 2006 If you want to include both wins vs unranked Clemson and unranked Georgia Tech and count them is big wins....then UM's win over a team like Penn State should be given validity...those 3 teams are about the same... We're talking about non-conference games here. Comparing these games to the Michigan/Penn State game makes no sense. So are you suggesting you think your little hypothetical scenario is valid??? What I'm suggesting is very simple, and reasonable, and it's not hypothetical. There were 4 SEC/Pac-10 games this year. 3 were good for the SEC, 1 was bad. The bad one was clearly affected by injuries, including but not limited to Heisman candidate McFadden's injury. So, to dis the SEC based just on the score of the one game, as many people have done, is misleading, inaccurate, and stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grind 0 Posted December 8, 2006 This is all I need to know to form my opinion that the SEC is an average conference. Arkansas played in the conference title game. The same Arkansas that has no QB and no passing offense what so ever. The fact that such a one dimensional team was able to have success in the SEC tells me a lot about the conference. The days of being one dimensional and winning left every other conference in America in the late 80's. Auburn also had success in SEC without being able to field a complete football team, as they can't pass either. This fact about the SEC alone amazes me. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other completely one-dimensional team in any other major conference that can win consistantly in football these days. This leads me to beleive that you can't do it in other conferences. It's most defensive coordinators dreams to make their opponent one-dimensional by taking away either the run or the pass. In the SEC, the defense doesn't have to take one away. The opponent already does that for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted December 8, 2006 All of the arguments I've seen for the strength of the SEC seem to revolve around SEC teams playing each other tough and a couple of wins over ranked teams. All that tells me is that the SEC doesn't entirely suck and there's a lot of parity within the conference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
