Question: Is the ACC better than the BIG 10,11,12?

what league is Memphis in? Sunbelt. maybe the Sunbelt is better than the Big 10

oregonbltzkrieg said:

That would be relevant if Florida wasn't such a terrible team (which they are currently).

Click to expand...

I assume you are basing your opinion off of their record last year. Maybe they were "such a terrible team" because of the tough competition of playing in the SEC every week and the amount of injuries they sustained last year. They won 11 games in 2012.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

FSU played cupcakes all season long last year, +1 lowest tier SEC team. When they actually faced the only legit team they played that year (Auburn), they didn't look all that great, and needed help from the refs to barely eke out a win.

Click to expand...

That's what you're going with? -lol

bradley30 said:

I assume you are basing your opinion off of their record last year. Maybe they were "such a terrible team" because of the tough competition of playing in the SEC every week and the amount of injuries they sustained last year. They won 11 games in 2012.

Click to expand...

Florida was atrocious in 2013. Georgia had injuries too, but at least they looked respectable. No way Florida could be considered a quality win for FSU.

Big 10 is a mess and has been that way for awhile. In my opinion the pac 12 is the second best behind the SEC. They have some good teams. Sure the bottom part isn't very good but all the conferences have bottom feeders.

Top to bottom conference rankings:

1. SEC


2. Big 12


3. Pac 12
4. ACC
5. Big 10

Big gaps between 1-2 and 2-3.

NationalTitles15 said:

Top to bottom conference rankings:

1. SEC


2. Big 12


3. Pac 12
4. ACC
5. Big 10

Big gaps between 1-2 and 2-3.

Click to expand...

Nice conference homer analysis. You're aware that Texas A & M pulverized USCe last week in their house right? A & M is built like a PAC team.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Nice conference homer analysis. You're aware that Texas A & M pulverized USCe last week in their house right? A & M is built like a PAC team.

Click to expand...

Not this year apparently. They played defense that game.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Nice conference homer analysis. You're aware that Texas A & M pulverized USCe last week in their house right? A & M is built like a PAC team.

Click to expand...

Are you drunk? You're mad because he put the Pac-12 at three?

I know I shouldn't, but how many titles has Oregon won again? When is the last time the Pac-12 won a title (their only BCS title was vacated)? Don't get me wrong, plenty of people were pulling for Oregon in 2010 but they let us down, which seems to be a theme. The Big 12 at least has two BCS titles...

CrimsonSEC said:

Not this year apparently. They played defense that game.

Click to expand...

Sure. And Oregon, Stanford and Southern Cal didn't? The 13-10 score down south in California was more SEC than the SEC. BTW. When is the SEC going to shave those late season cupcake gimme games and play real conference foes like we do in the PAC? That'll hurt the SEC with the playoff committee.

KrAzY3 said:

Are you drunk? You're mad because he put the Pac-12 at three?

I know I shouldn't, but how many titles has Oregon won again? When is the last time the Pac-12 won a title (their only BCS title was vacated)? Don't get me wrong, plenty of people were pulling for Oregon in 2010 but they let us down, which seems to be a theme. The Big 12 at least has two BCS titles...

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but we're talking about 2014 here and which conferences are currently the best. Ancient Big 12 BCS titles really don't factor into this much.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Nice conference homer analysis. You're aware that Texas A & M pulverized USCe last week in their house right? A & M is built like a PAC team.

Click to expand...

How is tamu built like a PAC team? They are built like a big 12 team if anything . Or better yet an SEC west team as 4of 6 use that style .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk yuuyyyy

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Sure. And Oregon, Stanford and Southern Cal didn't? The 13-10 score down south in California was more SEC than the SEC. BTW. When is the SEC going to shave those late season cupcake gimme games and play real conference foes like we do in the PAC? That'll hurt the SEC with the playoff committee.

Click to expand...

It looked two mediocre teams duking it out to me. Do you really think USC or Stanford holds Alabama, UGA, AU, TAMU, or LSU to 1 TD?

oregonbltzkrieg said:

I understand where you're coming from, but we're talking about 2014 here and which conferences are currently the best. Ancient Big 12 BCS titles really don't factor into this much.

Click to expand...

Well, we both know that the Pac almost ate the Big 12. I'm personally not inclined to argue over which of the two is better, but depth wise I would look towards the Pac as having the advantage (considering the Big 12 got cherry picked by three conferences). I just don't see the difference as big enough to argue over much.

But, one thing to keep in mind is that SEC fans are not going to take kindly to insinuations that the SEC plays a soft schedule or the like. First point is that the SEC has proven their dominance on the field. Not just with championships, but with having the most bowl wins on a consistent basis. Also, despite being larger than most conferences, their average strength as a conference still averages out to be #1 as well. So, they're basically #1 no matter how you measure it. This means that playing in the SEC is extremely tough, especially since as you alluded to, the SEC is known for a tougher style of football. It's grueling, and the teams more than earn the breathers they put into their schedule.

TideFan in AU said:

It looked two mediocre teams duking it out to me. Do you really think USC or Stanford holds Alabama, UGA, AU, TAMU, or LSU to 1 TD?

Click to expand...

Well, there is Oregon that doesn't play cupcakes according to Sam Ponder. And also UCL.., wait , nevermind .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk yuuyyyy

KrAzY3 said:

Well, we both know that the Pac almost ate the Big 12. I'm personally not inclined to argue over which of the two is better, but depth wise I would look towards the Pac as having the advantage (considering the Big 12 got cherry picked by three conferences). I just don't see the difference as big enough to argue over much.

But, one thing to keep in mind is that SEC fans are not going to take kindly to insinuations that the SEC plays a soft schedule or the like. First point is that the SEC has proven their dominance on the field. Not just with championships, but with having the most bowl wins on a consistent basis. Also, despite being larger than most conferences, their average strength as a conference still averages out to be #1 as well. So, they're basically #1 no matter how you measure it. This means that playing in the SEC is extremely tough, especially since as you alluded to, the SEC is known for a tougher style of football. It's grueling, and the teams more than earn the breathers they put into their schedule.

Click to expand...

SEC is the best conference hands down. I've never argued otherwise. But I maintain that the PAC is number 2. However I do think the SEC should abolish those ridiculous "bye week" late season games against hopelessly overmatched high school opponents, or should be punished by the playoff committee for keeping them. It would also be nice for the SEC to play better early season OOC games, and home and homes. Kudos to LSU. They do that. Kudos to you for scheduling SC.

Can't control the rest of the conference but since the turn of the century Bama has played UCLA(2),Oklahoma(2),Florida state, penn state(2) Virginia tech(2) clemson, WVU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk yuuyyyy

oregonbltzkrieg said:

SEC is the best conference hands down. I've never argued otherwise. But I maintain that the PAC is number 2. However I do think the SEC should abolish those ridiculous "bye week" late season games against hopelessly overmatched high school opponents, or should be punished by the playoff committee for keeping them.

Click to expand...

First, the committee is the joke, as the committee member running around on the field today demonstrates.

Anyway, that's easy for you to say, but let's take a look at the SEC West for example. Here are their all time rankings:
#1: Alabama
#9: LSU
#13: Auburn
#20: Texas A&M
#23: Arkansas
#28: Ole Miss
#43: Miss State

There's really nothing like that anywhere else in college football and in a way going with all time rankings is doing a disservice to programs like LSU and Texas A&M.

To provide a contrast:
#19: Washington
#25: Stanford
#30: California
#37: Oregon
#55: Oregon State
#56 Washington State

Now, I'll give some credit to Oregon for being better now than they have been in the past, along with Stanford, but Washington for example isn't up to traditional standards either. When you get to the bottom, you get to near cupcake like levels. On the whole, there's just no comparison. Playing in the SEC West means playing a football power almost every single week. So, it's easy, yet ridiculious to say that the SEC should play a tougher schedule, considering they already play the toughest one. I posted the numbers here once, but based on the SEC's strength, they could play the MAC as their 9th game, and still be playing as difficult a schedule as the Pac 12 has playing a 9 game conference schedule (although I think the SEC slate is tougher, considering the talent at the top), and tougher than any 9 game schedule in other conferences. The only way the committee punishes the SEC for playing a cupcake is if they're really bad at math.

KrAzY3 said:

First, the committee is the joke, as the committee member running around on the field today demonstrates.

Anyway, that's easy for you to say, but let's take a look at the SEC West for example. Here are their all time rankings:
#1: Alabama
#9: LSU
#13: Auburn
#20: Texas A&M
#23: Arkansas
#28: Ole Miss
#43: Miss State

There's really nothing like that anywhere else in college football and in a way going with all time rankings is doing a disservice to programs like LSU and Texas A&M.

To provide a contrast:
#19: Washington
#25: Stanford
#30: California
#37: Oregon
#55: Oregon State
#56 Washington State

Now, I'll give some credit to Oregon for being better now than they have been in the past, along with Stanford, but Washington for example isn't up to traditional standards either. When you get to the bottom, you get to near cupcake like levels. On the whole, there's just no comparison. Playing in the SEC West means playing a football power almost every single week. So, it's easy, yet ridiculious to say that the SEC should play a tougher schedule, considering they already play the toughest one. I posted the numbers here once, but based on the SEC's strength, they could play the MAC as their 9th game, and still be playing as difficult a schedule as the Pac 12 has playing a 9 game conference schedule (although I think the SEC slate is tougher, considering the talent at the top), and tougher than any 9 game schedule in other conferences. The only way the committee punishes the SEC for playing a cupcake is if they're really bad at math.

Click to expand...

What are all time rankings and where do you get those figures? No doubt the SEC usually plays a tough schedule, but it still looks bad if other conferences are playing teams in their own league late in the season while the SEC gives itself a week long break by scheduling weak teams during that week.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

What are all time rankings and where do you get those figures? No doubt the SEC usually plays a tough schedule, but it still looks bad if other conferences are playing teams in their own league late in the season while the SEC gives itself a week long break by scheduling weak teams during that week.

Click to expand...

Here's the all time rankings: http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php
I consider them a matter of importance because they demonstrate the underlying level of support a program has. Things might vary over time, and some distant records skew things somewhat (such as Yale or Princeton's dominance in another era), but the tendency is for a football power to trend that way over a long period of time, such as Alabama returning to dominant form. I used these standings to argue that Texas A&M was a strong football program when some argued against their inclusion to the SEC (arguing, ironically enough they weren't good enough). Of course, Oregon is an exception, with their offense and Phil Knight fueling current success. It does, however, remain to be seen if that is sustainable over a long period of time.

What you are alluding to is nothing but PR problem, which of course other conferences have incentive to focus on. It is interesting, since the Pac 12 appears to play the second most difficult conference schedule. But, the sheer physicality of SEC play demands some sort of a breather. If you have an offense that's more spread out, that is more pass heavy as west coast offenses tend to be, you have a less physically grueling opponent. This is magnified as the season progresses. It might not even mean more serious injuries, but it means more bumps and bruises, more pain, more soreness, longer recovery times, etc...

Anyway, as a whole this notion is driven by a silly idea that a power 5 conference game is created equal. As the rankings I showed demonstrate, that's absurd. I won't take the time to do the ratings, but look up some ACC schools for example. Duke, Wake Forest, are they not (usually) weak teams? Simply being in the ACC doesn't change that.

This then gets into another flawed aspect of SoS. SoS is an average, however, for a truly elite team, it only really matters when you're around the top 50. So, an SoS calculation will insist it matters more to play #70 than it does to play #100, but does it really? Not when it comes to determining a champion. What does matter most however, is playing #10, #5, that sort of thing because those are the games that matter.