-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter bullsfan75
- Start date
bullsfan75
Junior
thomps,
I won't respond to your entire post because we're starting to go in circles and I don't have the time and energy to convey a perspective that we will never share.
I must note, though, that the stats you're posting (from 2000 forward) are largely irrelevant to our discussion. I have said REPEATEDLY that I am not discussing the Pac-10 of the past - only the 2004 lineup, which by any measure was a mere shadow of what the conference used to be. I have also explicitly stated that the Pac-10 will inevitably regain its luster - last year was strikingly horrible primarily because of the conference's former greatness. (It's not shocking to see the Big East stink; the Pac-10 is a whole different story.)
If you're enamored by the idea that the conference had a good 2004 campaign and won't let anyone convince you otherwise, we don't have much more to talk about. I've enjoyed the discussion, and hope there are no hard feelings.
I won't respond to your entire post because we're starting to go in circles and I don't have the time and energy to convey a perspective that we will never share.
I must note, though, that the stats you're posting (from 2000 forward) are largely irrelevant to our discussion. I have said REPEATEDLY that I am not discussing the Pac-10 of the past - only the 2004 lineup, which by any measure was a mere shadow of what the conference used to be. I have also explicitly stated that the Pac-10 will inevitably regain its luster - last year was strikingly horrible primarily because of the conference's former greatness. (It's not shocking to see the Big East stink; the Pac-10 is a whole different story.)
If you're enamored by the idea that the conference had a good 2004 campaign and won't let anyone convince you otherwise, we don't have much more to talk about. I've enjoyed the discussion, and hope there are no hard feelings.
Upvote
0
FKAGobucks877
The Most Power-Drunk
This is an interesting little debate we have going here, but do you guys think you could agree on specific outcomes of games? I mean, to me, Thomps numbers seem kind of convincing, but I thought the PAC 10 was a sub-par conference...so I look at it like this:
If the top SEC team were to play the top PAC 10 team, who would win?
If the second SEC team were to play the second PAC 10 team, who would win?
And so on and so forth...to me, the answer is clear. The SEC would kill the PAC 10, probably to the tune of something like 7-3 after ten games. Sorry, Thomps. I can respect USC, but the rest of that conference (at least last year) was weak.
If the top SEC team were to play the top PAC 10 team, who would win?
If the second SEC team were to play the second PAC 10 team, who would win?
And so on and so forth...to me, the answer is clear. The SEC would kill the PAC 10, probably to the tune of something like 7-3 after ten games. Sorry, Thomps. I can respect USC, but the rest of that conference (at least last year) was weak.
Upvote
0
jimotis4heisman
Banned
the sec has more teams. i always figure that in to my conclusion. so they should have better teams
Upvote
0
Yep, to compare a 12-team conference to a 10-team conference fairly, the middle 2 SEC teams shouild be dropped, so the top-5 and bottom-5 from each conference are compared to each other. I think the bottom 2 teams in the Pac-10 are better than the bottom 2 in the SEC, but nobody usually gives a rat's ass about those things when comparisons are done.jimotis4heisman said:
Upvote
0
