Its Bowl Season...

[soccer10k]

All teams do this. It's not exactly a new practice. I could go through all the major conferences and find a bunch of low DI-A and DI-AA schools that they schedule year in and year out.

 

That's my point. I'm sure if Rutgers, USF and WVU were SEC schools, Cuse would be hammering them for playing garbage OOC schedules. But I guess because they're in the Big East it's somehow okay for them not to play anyone.

 

Then what makes the SEC teams better than? The 5-3 record in the Bowl games? I concede that the Big East teams play some easy teams but they also play major BCS conference teams too. Name one team that Auburn played that went to a bowl out of conference 0, Florida 1....LSU 0? Louisville played 3. WV played 2. Rutgers 1. Where did the SEC prove it was better?

 

I'm not impressed by those wins.... East Carolina, Navy, Kansas State, Middle Tennessee State? Big deal. Those are unranked teams, maybe rating around #50-60 in the nation. If you're a true top 15 team, you shouldn't have any difficulty beating mediocre squads like that. Most SEC teams play at least 6 bowl teams in conference, which sure as hell isn't the case for Big East teams.

 

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

[TruffleShuffle]

Let me add that to go 5-0 shows depth. The Mel Kippers of the world always say how much depth the SEC has. They went 5-3. If they are that good they shouldn't have lost 3 games but they somehow managed to do so.

 

This doesn't make any sense. They lost 3 games (and maybe 4) because they had some tough matchups. Arkansas played a top 10 Wisconsin team. Alabama was mediocre and played a similarly mediocre Okie State team. You also had the SEC showing its depth by teams like Kentucky and Georgia pulling off upsets against favored opponents.

 

 

Don't you find it strange that the SEC and Big 10 play each other 3 times? Why is that? Gotta keep it in the family.

 

Well one game is in the national championship game, so it's completely absurd that you're even including that one. As for the other two, you get the second or third best team in each conference to play each other in the Capitol One Bowl, making it the best non-BCS bowl out there, and sometimes better than the BCS bowls. Then the next team in line from each conference plays in the Outback Bowl, and that's usually a very good game as well.

 

But to further answer your question, it's because you get two very good, high-profile teams from deep conferences to play in a bowl game, and that's good for ratings, and I'd argue that it's good for college football in general. Games like Arkansas-Wisconsin are definitely worth watching.

 

I know you're all proud of your Big East, but let's not forget that two years ago they were getting completely embarassed by a Mountain West school in a BCS game. So let's have the Big East teams earn their stripes before we just automatically start assuming that they can hang depth-wise and talent-wise with the traditional power conferences. If Rutgers, WVU and Louisville all stay good and Pitt/Cincy/USF keep emerging, then I'm sure the Big East will get better, higher-profile bowl games. But to think that an 8-team conference that just lost three of its most prestigious members will receive the same treatment as well-established power conferences is idiotic.

[TruffleShuffle]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

[CuseCubFan69]

All teams do this. It's not exactly a new practice. I could go through all the major conferences and find a bunch of low DI-A and DI-AA schools that they schedule year in and year out.

 

That's my point. I'm sure if Rutgers, USF and WVU were SEC schools, Cuse would be hammering them for playing garbage OOC schedules. But I guess because they're in the Big East it's somehow okay for them not to play anyone.

 

Then what makes the SEC teams better than? The 5-3 record in the Bowl games? I concede that the Big East teams play some easy teams but they also play major BCS conference teams too. Name one team that Auburn played that went to a bowl out of conference 0, Florida 1....LSU 0? Louisville played 3. WV played 2. Rutgers 1. Where did the SEC prove it was better?

 

I'm not impressed by those wins.... East Carolina, Navy, Kansas State, Middle Tennessee State? Big deal. Those are unranked teams, maybe rating around #50-60 in the nation. If you're a true top 15 team, you shouldn't have any difficulty beating mediocre squads like that. Most SEC teams play at least 6 bowl teams in conference, which sure as hell isn't the case for Big East teams.

 

Add Miami, Maryland and Kentucky. Top 3 SEC teams a 7-6 Florida St. That's it. This isn't homerism, it's a fact.

 

 

So it's ok that the SEC doesn't play any BCS teams out of conference and then go 4-0 against AA teams? All they have to do is win 2 games in conference to go to a bowl. What determines they are the elite conference? They went 5-3 in bowls, that's good but not elite. They are good I agree but not the best and not the deepest. Among, yes but not hands down let's assume they are always the best conference. That's my point, they just don't play anyone to get a read on how good they are. Why didn't Auburn go to the BCS Championship that one year even though they went undefeated? They didn't play anyone out of conference that was even decent. If they just played 2 BCS conference teams out of conference then fine. They never do, except for Tennessee (out of the top teams).

[CubinNY]

Let me add that to go 5-0 shows depth. The Mel Kippers of the world always say how much depth the SEC has. They went 5-3. If they are that good they shouldn't have lost 3 games but they somehow managed to do so.

 

This doesn't make any sense. They lost 3 games (and maybe 4) because they had some tough matchups. Arkansas played a top 10 Wisconsin team. Alabama was mediocre and played a similarly mediocre Okie State team. You also had the SEC showing its depth by teams like Kentucky and Georgia pulling off upsets against favored opponents.

 

 

Don't you find it strange that the SEC and Big 10 play each other 3 times? Why is that? Gotta keep it in the family.

 

Well one game is in the national championship game, so it's completely absurd that you're even including that one. As for the other two, you get the second or third best team in each conference to play each other in the Capitol One Bowl, making it the best non-BCS bowl out there, and sometimes better than the BCS bowls. Then the next team in line from each conference plays in the Outback Bowl, and that's usually a very good game as well.

 

But to further answer your question, it's because you get two very good, high-profile teams from deep conferences to play in a bowl game, and that's good for ratings, and I'd argue that it's good for college football in general. Games like Arkansas-Wisconsin are definitely worth watching.

 

I know you're all proud of your Big East, but let's not forget that two years ago they were getting completely embarassed by a Mountain West school in a BCS game. So let's have the Big East teams earn their stripes before we just automatically start assuming that they can hang depth-wise and talent-wise with the traditional power conferences. If Rutgers, WVU and Louisville all stay good and Pitt/Cincy/USF keep emerging, then I'm sure the Big East will get better, higher-profile bowl games. But to think that an 8-team conference that just lost three of its most prestigious members will receive the same treatment as well-established power conferences is idiotic.

 

Isn't the Big East part of the BCS series?

 

If so, I don't see what there is to gripe about. If a MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West or WAC (is that still a conference?) school goes undefeated they don't even get a shot.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

 

Pitt was eligible for a bowl but for some reason didn't get to go. I'm sure it wasn't because of the bowl system. See, you get a 6 win SEC, Big 10 or 12 team and they go bowling but you get a 6 win Big East team and they stay home.

[CuseCubFan69]

Let me add that to go 5-0 shows depth. The Mel Kippers of the world always say how much depth the SEC has. They went 5-3. If they are that good they shouldn't have lost 3 games but they somehow managed to do so.

 

This doesn't make any sense. They lost 3 games (and maybe 4) because they had some tough matchups. Arkansas played a top 10 Wisconsin team. Alabama was mediocre and played a similarly mediocre Okie State team. You also had the SEC showing its depth by teams like Kentucky and Georgia pulling off upsets against favored opponents.

 

 

Don't you find it strange that the SEC and Big 10 play each other 3 times? Why is that? Gotta keep it in the family.

 

Well one game is in the national championship game, so it's completely absurd that you're even including that one. As for the other two, you get the second or third best team in each conference to play each other in the Capitol One Bowl, making it the best non-BCS bowl out there, and sometimes better than the BCS bowls. Then the next team in line from each conference plays in the Outback Bowl, and that's usually a very good game as well.

 

But to further answer your question, it's because you get two very good, high-profile teams from deep conferences to play in a bowl game, and that's good for ratings, and I'd argue that it's good for college football in general. Games like Arkansas-Wisconsin are definitely worth watching.

 

I know you're all proud of your Big East, but let's not forget that two years ago they were getting completely embarassed by a Mountain West school in a BCS game. So let's have the Big East teams earn their stripes before we just automatically start assuming that they can hang depth-wise and talent-wise with the traditional power conferences. If Rutgers, WVU and Louisville all stay good and Pitt/Cincy/USF keep emerging, then I'm sure the Big East will get better, higher-profile bowl games. But to think that an 8-team conference that just lost three of its most prestigious members will receive the same treatment as well-established power conferences is idiotic.

 

Isn't the Big East part of the BCS series?

 

If so, I don't see what there is to gripe about. If a MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West or WAC (is that still a conference?) school goes undefeated they don't even get a shot.

 

See that's the problem. They get a bite of the cookie so that should be good enough while the real conferences get the rest of the bag. It should be equal and the Big East has proved it is at least on equal terms but yet we get, hey they have a chance to have one team go they should be happy. No, they deserved at least this year to have 2 teams in the BCS and for Louisville to be mentioned for the Championship game. That's the thing that bugs me, they NEVER get mentioned to play in that game. Again, hey, they get to make the top 5 isn't that good enough? (I'm not saying you say this but this is the typical line of thinking). Louisville has one loss just like Michigan and Florida but never are they even mentioned as a team that could play in the big game.

 

Think of it like this. USC is undefeated and are the only team that is undefeated. You are Ohio State and have 1 loss along with ND. ND goes to the big game, how do you feel about that? Are you happy with a hey, at least you made the top 5 and end up behind a 2 loss LSU team that didn't even win it's conference. Michigan fans at least were #3 but look how upset they were when a 1 loss team got the nod over them. This is my main beef, Louisville got not one chance...not one and they came out of a very good conference this year. The easy brushoff without thought is what upsets me. The assumption that the "big conference" teams have to lose twice while the Big East has to go undefeated is my point....undefeated like the MAC or WAC even though we ARE part of the BCS so a 1 loss Big East team should get the same treatment as a 1 loss SEC, Big 10 or 12 team. They don't.

[soccer10k]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

 

Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games.

 

This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow):

 

ACC: 2

Big 12: 2

Big East: 2

Big Ten: 4

Pac-10: 1

SEC: 5

 

Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap.

 

 

I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

 

Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games.

 

This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow):

 

ACC: 2

Big 12: 2

Big East: 2

Big Ten: 4

Pac-10: 1

SEC: 5

 

Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap.

 

 

I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10.

 

Well the Pac 10 is an offensive league (theory) and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years. One is ok but more than 1 is something they don't allow.

 

What are the Rose Bowl stats between the PAC10 and Big 10 win wise?

[soccer10k]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

 

Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games.

 

This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow):

 

ACC: 2

Big 12: 2

Big East: 2

Big Ten: 4

Pac-10: 1

SEC: 5

 

Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap.

 

 

I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10.

 

Well the Pac 10 is an offensive league (theory) and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years. One is ok but more than 1 is something they don't allow.

 

What are the Rose Bowl stats between the PAC10 and Big 10 win wise?

 

There have been a ton of Rose Bowls played so I don't know. Plus, in 3 of the last 6 years it hasn't featured a matchup of Big 10-Pac 10. The Big 10 hasn't won a Rose Bowl since Jan 1, 2000.

 

EDIT: And just because they're "an offensive league and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years" doesn't make it right.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

 

Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games.

 

This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow):

 

ACC: 2

Big 12: 2

Big East: 2

Big Ten: 4

Pac-10: 1

SEC: 5

 

Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap.

 

 

I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10.

 

Well the Pac 10 is an offensive league (theory) and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years. One is ok but more than 1 is something they don't allow.

 

What are the Rose Bowl stats between the PAC10 and Big 10 win wise?

 

There have been a ton of Rose Bowls played so I don't know. Plus, in 3 of the last 6 years it hasn't featured a matchup of Big 10-Pac 10. The Big 10 hasn't won a Rose Bowl since Jan 1, 2000.

 

EDIT: And just because they're "an offensive league and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years" doesn't make it right.

 

I agree but there's always this perception of assumptions what a good team is.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well that's not too hard to accomplish when 9 of your 12 teams make a bowl game.

 

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better.

 

Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games.

 

This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow):

 

ACC: 2

Big 12: 2

Big East: 2

Big Ten: 4

Pac-10: 1

SEC: 5

 

Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap.

 

 

I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10.

 

It's especially disconcerting since the Pac 10 was the best conference in football this year.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's especially disconcerting since the Pac 10 was the best conference in football this year.

 

I thought the Big East was.

[CuseCubFan69]

It's especially disconcerting since the Pac 10 was the best conference in football this year.

 

I thought the Big East was.

 

Now you're talking!

[DCNashville]

 

Then what makes the SEC teams better than? The 5-3 record in the Bowl games? I concede that the Big East teams play some easy teams but they also play major BCS conference teams too. Name one team that Auburn played that went to a bowl out of conference 0, Florida 1....LSU 0? Louisville played 3. WV played 2. Rutgers 1. Where did the SEC prove it was better?

 

You continue to beat the out of conference drum, but how can you really believe that the 7-8 Big East games are anywhere near as tough as the 7-8 SEC games that Auburn/Florida/etc play? This is absurd. Louisville, West Virginia, and Rutgers all had great seasons, but the rest of the league is average and can't hold a candle to the 4-12 slots in the Big 10, SEC, etc.

[DCNashville]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

[Andy]

ND is an independent because they can be. No sense giving up millions of dollars in NBC money, etc. just to appease a group of ND haters.

 

I miss the era of independents.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

 

I'd put Arkansas over Louisville and WVU.

[SouthSideRyan]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

 

I'd put Arkansas over Louisville and WVU.

 

I'd put teams that can pass the ball over Arkansas. It also isn't fair to rank the top 8 SEC teams compared with the 8 Big East teams because you're cutting out the 4 worst teams in the SEC. I'd probably drop Kentucky down a lot, and South Carolina a few spots. I'd also switch LSU and Florida.

[Warpticon]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

 

I'd put Arkansas over Louisville and WVU.

 

I wouldn't.

[DCNashville]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

 

I'd put Arkansas over Louisville and WVU.

 

I'd put teams that can pass the ball over Arkansas. It also isn't fair to rank the top 8 SEC teams compared with the 8 Big East teams because you're cutting out the 4 worst teams in the SEC. I'd probably drop Kentucky down a lot, and South Carolina a few spots. I'd also switch LSU and Florida.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Alabama

15.Pitt

16.Vandy

17.Ole' Miss

18.UConn

19.Syracuse

20.Mississippi State

 

I think ranking all 12 SEC schools against the Big East makes the BE look even worse, actually. There's no way I could move South Carolina down further, as I could not see any of the Big East teams below them beating them head to head. Their five losses were to Georgia, Auburn, Arkansas, Tennesse, and Florida. Kentucky maybe could be moved down with only one good win, but maybe just below South Florida. SF has a better record, but they also have all of one win of significant quality.

 

Also, I agree that LSU is more talented, but it is hard to put them above possible national champion Florida.

[DCNashville]

Perhaps the more interesting argument concerns the Big 10 vs. the SEC. From top to bottom, which stacks up better? I've only looked at the top 10 in each league to have even numbers for comparison.

 

1. Ohio State

2. Michigan

3. Florida

4. LSU

5. Wisconsin

6. Arkansas

7. Auburn

8. Penn State

9. Tennessee

10.Georgia

11.Purdue

12.South Carolina

13.Kentucky

14.Alabama

15.Iowa

16.Minnesota

17.Indiana

18.Vandy

19.Michigan State

20.Northwestern

 

In 2006, at least, I believe the SEC was significantly better than the Big 10, despite perhaps being weaker at the top. I'm still not convinced that OSU, UM, and Wisconsin aren't the three best teams in this group. The middle and bottom of the B10 was just pretty awful this season, however.

 

Also, I agree that LSU is more talented, but it is hard to put them above possible national champion Florida.

[TruffleShuffle]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

 

I'd put Arkansas over Louisville and WVU.

 

I'd put teams that can pass the ball over Arkansas.

 

Well, you could still keep Arkansas over WVU then.

[cubweiser03]

Well the Pac 10 is an offensive league (theory) and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years. One is ok but more than 1 is something they don't allow.

 

What are the Rose Bowl stats between the PAC10 and Big 10 win wise?

 

Yeah because Michigan goes to the Rose Bowl to much. If you excluded all the Michigan Rose Bowl games it would probably be pretty good for the B10. Bo was 2-8 in the Rose and Carr is now 1-3. They need to change the goal of not just going to Pasadena every year but winning at Pasadena.

 

Wow, all that SEC speed was too much for the Big Ten to handle. Can we just put that SEC speed garbage to rest. I thought SEC was supposed to have all these great defenses, well PSU and Wiscy matched up pretty well in that department. It aint like the best teams in the B10 are slow and prodding anymore. Ohio State is just as fast as Florida is. Pittman aint Keith Byers and Ginn isnt Cris Carter.

[CuseCubFan69]

Let me preface this little exercise by stating that I do not like the SEC in any way. This is how I would rank the top 8 SEC teams and the 8 Big East teams, based only on this season of play. I would like to see anyone else's opinion this as well.

 

1. Florida

2. LSU

3. Louisville

4. West Virginia

5. Arkansas

6. Auburn

7. Rutgers

8. Tennessee

9. Georgia

10.South Carolina

11.Kentucky

12.Cincy

13.South Florida

14.Pitt

15.UConn

16.Syracuse

 

While I believe the top 3 Big East teams are in the class of the top SEC teams this season, the 4-8 of the Big East is very poor in comparison to the middle 4-8 of the SEC.

 

This is why I want a playoff. The good ole boys vote and things just remain the same. I want the games decided on the field and not by voters and until it is this is what is going to happen time and time again, polls like this. Of course if there is a playoff I'm sure the people in charge would only let one Big East team in.

 

 

SFlorida finished ahead of Cincy but please don't let facts get in the way. Assume away.