In football, 7 points is equal to one td+XP, which most people consider to be one score, just for future reference. Anyways, if I remember the stat correctly, the last time he lost by more than 7 was all the way back in his first year to Bob Davie and ND, which is just amazing when you think about it. Pete Carroll is a hell of a college coach, no one can deny it.

Purdue and Michigan shouldn't be an issue for OSU either. It's a wash. But SC is about the same place in the polls Penn State is. How shouldn't that be an issue? Unless you're saying the SEC is SO GOOD that the top teams should dismantle any top-25 team on Saturday. (And yes, lol@ SC last night, but still).

I think the point is that South Carolina is ****ing horrible, and the only reason they made it to the top 25 is that NC State is even worse and they play in the SEC.

Then just drop these irrelevant games out totally if you're going to make a comparison. You say one schedule is harder than another while including those games as evidence, it makes it sound like you think those teams are actually good.

The dumbest part of this is that he somehow watches the Pac-10 and still can't figure out that WSU wasn't even the worst team in the confrence last year.

Many conferences have a handful of good schools for this(well, probably not the Big Ten), but the SEC's real edge is that it doesn't have fugly concentration camps like the ACC and Pac-10 are saddled with.

A bit funnier 18 years ago. I actually will cheer for Michigan against Notre Dame and the SEC, only because I can't stand their fans and feel a bit bad for Michigan for being so bad for so long.

Every Florida fan I run into is BAFFLED that I was cheering for them against Michigan.

But it does kinda support the OP's original point...

We can call it, exhibit A

b

Agreed, but GOD DAMMIT EVERYONE IS CALLING MY KYLEB HYACHAHCHHAHCHHA

Haha

Also About as big and easy to get into as Thay3r's mom AMIRITE?

Keep in mind its usually inversely correlated with football talent. The MS schools destroy AL despite AL having a massive edge in history and recent success. Other states don't have enough teams to care about.

Washington:
Wins:Boise St and Cal, Stanford and Cuse
Close losses: USC 27-24, Arizona 48-41, OSU 29-23, Wazzu 42-35, Hawaii 35-28

Wazzu:
Wins: SDSU, Idaho, Stanford, Washington
Close losses: ASU 23-20, Cal 20-17


So Wazzu beat Washington on the field by 7 and therefore finished with one more win.

Washgington beat two bowl teams, while Wazzu beat zero, and also lost 5 games by 7 or less, while Wazzu only lost 2 by 7 or less. Of those 5, two were against teams that went to BCS bowls and one was against another very good bowl team.


After watching both those teams play last year, if I am a good but not great team, I would rather play Wazzu than Washington.

Wazzu beat more crappy teams and beat Washington on the field, but Washington took 6 good teams to the wire, winning 2. Not to mention the fact that they were beating Ohio State at halftime and were competitive right until the very end.




Either that, or you're telling me that Stanford is the worst team in the conference despite the fact that they beat USC (and Cal and Arizona for that matter).



But please, I'm eager to hear your reasoning as to why I am so dumb.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/se...archid=5486625

Looks like he watched the games to me. I'd say this is a pretty good assessment of the lower Pac 10 last year.

b

Washington lost to Ohio State 33-14, so he's being disingenuous to call that competitive, but the real humor is that he thinks Washington is the other contender for worst team when it was Stanford who was obviously the worst team in the Pac-10.

Stanford was pretty bad last year, sure they beat USC (luckbox ftw!) but they were absolutely pounded by a lot of other teams. Same with Washington State, they won a few upsets and got pounded a bunch. Washington at least kept it close in most of their losses, their point differential was significantly better than either Wazzu or Stanford. So while they may have been the worst team record wise in the Pac 10, they probably were only the third worst team from a predictive point of view. They were favored against both teams, even on the road at Stanford.

If I do remember correctly, the OSU game was close for the first half before they pulled away in the later stages. They at least put up a fight for a little bit before rolling over to die. Looking back at, they actually had the half time lead.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ightful/080905

Oh, shocker! HALF of the teams in the NATION that play the softest non conference schedules are in the SEC!

Don't pay any attention to the fact that those teams went 7-21 against BCS competition... they have to beat up on nobodies so that when they beat other SEC teams everybody thinks that they're quality losses.

3rd quarter UW didn't show up(iirc, they fumbled the kickoff after half to start.). But it was a helluva first half.

We were shocked to even be that close after the first half.

b

Washington was winning 7-3 at halftime, losing 17-7 at the end of the third quarter. The game was 24-14, and Ohio State scored a meaningless touchdown with zero time left. I said that IN ADDITION to their other CLOSE games, this was a competitive game. I don't think that it's disingenuous at all.

When you're talking about how tough your conference is, you are talking about a lot of good teams, a lot of solid teams, and that the teams at the bottom of your conference have enough talent and are dangerous enough to knock off top teams.

Teams like Uconn that win the games they're supposed to, and get rolled by the good teams don't make a conference nearly as tough as teams like Washington or Stanford (or Colorado, or whatever) that lose games to crappy teams that they shouldn't, but still have the capacity to knock off the top teams if they play well.

Those 9 point touchdowns are a bitch, I admit.

Both teams scored a touchdown in the last minute, the 'real' score was 27-7. Whatever, it's not important, but when you're relying on the 'watch the games' type stuff you do need to get it right.


USC's loss to Stanford said more about USC than it did about Stanford.

ELLL DEEE OHHH

I mean, I think the 5th- and 6th-best teams on LSU's schedule are better than the 5th- and 6th-best teams on OSU's, yeah.

4 of those 5 teams aren't good anyway. The one that is has two national titles to it's name in the last 5 years. Better evidence plz.

This is messed up. (And before you pull out the "southern pride" hilarity again, I went to UGA but I'm from Chicago.) There is nothing wrong with wanting more prestige for your conference and hoping other conference teams win--it *only* makes your conference, and your team's wins over conference opponents, look better. Also, conference rivalries lose a lot of passion when one of the teams sucks. When Georgia-Florida rolls around, I'll curse Urban Meyer's name; but if Florida's 4-3, a win won't taste as good.