<p>But we can't weight a badminton championship the same as a football championship.</p>
<p>Sam Lee,
I am sorry that i do not follow UCLA's crew team year after year, and i am sure you don't either, anyone can look up statistics on a website.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually USC only won the national championship game one year (in 2004).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no championship game. Split titles are part of NCAA football. Both LSU and USC were crowned champions, both were invited to the White House, both get credit for a national championship. And by the way, USC and UCLA do have a monopoly on football and basketball; look at all the past titles won. </p>
<p>You want to talk current sports fine, then i guess you can say the Mets are greater than the Yankees, Jon Garland is greater than Roger Clemens, and Terrell Owens is greater than Jerry Rice.</p>
<p>Stanford, UCLA, USC, and Berkeley are still reeling in the championships.</p>
<p>The fact is, the Pac-10 is far and away the greatest and most winningest athletic conference in the NCAA.</p>
<p>Toph and uvajoe,</p>
<p>I think you guys are just in denial. We are talking about OVERALL athletics, not just one or two sports in one or two years. Don't play dumb to throw in men's tennis this year (sorry dude, ACC just can't seem to get a championship on that) and try to make it looks less clear than it actually is. Men's tennis is one of the sports where there's huge parity among conferences. ACC is pretty pathetic in the women's tennis by the way. To say Pac-10 was the greatest only in the past is BS. Pac-10 has been winningest in ANY given year, whether it's 40 years ago, 20 years, last year or even THIS year! Pac-10 has had at least 4 championships in ANY given year in the past 25 years. In some years, Stanford or UCLA each got like 3, 4, or even 5 championships. On the other hand, even in recent years, there are times when ACC as a whole didn't even have one single champsionship. The difference is huge!</p>
<p>First of all, UVAjoe made the thread, so we are answering the question from his perspective</p>
<p>And I think Pac10 still may win if we consider basketball and football, though the Tarheels unfortunately won Bball this year</p>
<p>Well, I have no problem with saying ACC is better than Pac10 in basketball and football (because of the addition of Miami, VA Tech, and Boston College) these days. However, one can't just put up a virtually non-defensible statement like "ACC has is the best 'athletic' conference" which any unbiaesd person can easily refute and then redefine "athletics" as football/basketball only. That's like someone saying Boston College is better than Harvard because he/she thinks best students score around 1200 instead of 1500. LOL! Anything goes when one arbitrarily picks and chooses like that and redefines things in his own way.</p>
<p>Yes, there is a championship game. The BCS denotes a championship game each year, and they pick two teams to play in this game. The winner of the game automatically wins the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll. However, the AP poll can pick who they want also, but nevertheless, there is still a championship game.</p>
<p>I can't believe you seriously trying to say that UCLA is a good team. They haven't won a championship in a long time. When was their last championship? 1975! HAHA. Yet they have a monopoly, huh? If we're going to live in the past then I guess we can say dinosaurs are still living and Hitler is starting the Third Reich again.</p>
<p>And you want to talk about monopoly with USC? Before they won the title game this year their last unanimous national championship was in the 70's. And since you have a habit of going by the amount of championships a team has won then I guess Yale has a monopoly too. Oh sorry if I'm getting ahead of myself, Yale has won as many championships as USC.</p>
<p>UC_Benz, I am pretty sure, although not 100%, that UCLA won an NCAA Basketball NC in the mid-late 90s. </p>
<p>As for USC, they have won 2 NCs, back to back and a bunch of Rose Bowls since the 1970's. They had a couple of down years in the 90s, but othewise, they have been consistantly good since the 1950s.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>UC_Benz, I am pretty sure, although not 100%, that UCLA won an NCAA Basketball NC in the mid-late 90s.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<ol>
<li> Final score UCLA 89, Arkansas 78. </li>
</ol>
<p>11 championships in total.</p>
<p>The ACC is the slightly better academic league</p>
<p>Duke roughly equals Stanford
UVA roughly equals Cal Berk
UNC roughly equals UCLA
Wake roughly equals USC
GT roughly equals Washington
(arguements can be made either way, but the comparisons are close)</p>
<p>The difference lies in the bottom half of leagues. All the ACC schools are all extremely solid.
Maryland (56)
Miami Fl (58)
Virginia Tech (74)
Clemson (74)
NC State (86)
Florida St. (3rd tier)</p>
<p>Pac-10
Arizona (98)
Oregon (118)
Washington St (120)
Arizona St. (third tier)
Oregon St. (third tier)</p>
<p>Throw in Boston College for the ACC.....and the debate should end.</p>
<p>Well, I do agree that ACC is slightly better (more balanced). But argument can be made either way about Stanford vs Duke, UVA vs Berk, and UNC vs UCLA? Looks more like a one-way street to me with Stanford, Berk, and UCLA being sightly better than Duke, UVA, and UNC, respectively.</p>
<p>That's why I think the Big 10 is best. At the top, I would say it is as strong as the Pac 10 (Chicago, Northwestern, Michigan and Wisconsin) and at the bottom, it is stronger than either the Pac 10 or the ACC (Penn State, Ohio State, Iowa and Michigan State).</p>
<p>... at the top end? Chicago?</p>
<p>First, Chicago is NOT a Big 10 member. </p>
<p>Yes, Chicago was at one point in time - but that was over 50 years ago!! (They discontinued their football program in 1939 and left the conference in 1946!) ... i mean, Chicago hasn't had a football team in over 60 years!!! </p>
<p>In fact, Chicago's decision to leave the Big 10 was direct decision to deemphasize athletics. Chicago is about as athletic as CalTech or MIT!... I know it would be nice to try and loop them into your argument, but, let's get our facts straight - their very reason for leaving the Big 10 in the first place was driven by their decision to try and be taken more seriously academically and not be associated with sports - i.e. the Big 10 (the very thing you are trying to connect them with!) ... but, hey, nice try dude! </p>
<p>Next, Stanford runs circles around every single Big 10 member HANDS DOWN ... even you Alexandre have gone on record that Stanford is in another league. Comparing Stanford vs. the Big 10 in academic terms? Stanford is Tiger Woods. </p>
<p>Berkeley is the best public U. in the country... and consistently higher rated than any Big 10 member.</p>
<p>At the top end? Pac 10 is the hands down winner.</p>
<p>Bottom end? about the same (Pac 10 / ACC / Big 10)</p>
<p>Ivy_Grad, Chicagho still belongs to the CIC...the Big 10+ Chicago. So when speaking of academics, it is appropriate to include Chicago.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/about.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/about.shtml</a></p>
<p>I agree that the Big 10 (or the ACC for that matter) does not have an answer to Stanford. That is clear. But I think that Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern and Wisconsin are still a force to be reckoned with. And you may not realize this, but academically speaking, the rest of the big 10, from Illinois and Minnesota to Penn State and Indiana are better than the lower tier of the ACC and Pac 10.</p>
<p>Academically, it all depends.</p>
<p>The Pac-10 wins for quality with Stanford and the best public university in the world with Berkeley.</p>
<p>The Big 10 wins for quantity since it's so well-rounded. </p>
<p>The ACC is somewhere in between both.</p>
<p>I agree. The Stanford-Cal combo matches the Cambridge (MA) combo. I do not think any two universities can duplicate that type of combo.</p>
<p>But the Big 10 has more than just quantity. It has 5 universities that, in terms of academic reputation and academic excellence, rank among the top 30 nationally. They are Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern and Wisconsin. All 5 of those schools get a ***** academic rating by Fiske and have a 4.0+ academic reputation score according to the USNWR. </p>
<p>And Indiana, Minnesota, Penn State and Purdue are not far behind.</p>
<p>Okay, sorry I missed that one. But that doesn't change the fact that 1 championship in 30 years? That is hardly a monopoly! UCLA is definitely resting on its laurels if they consider themselves to have a monopoly. Or some of you don't even know what the word means.</p>
<p>The last unanimous national championship that USC had won was in 1972. The posters who are claiming the PAC 10 to have a monopoly on sports must have an infatuation with the 70's.</p>
<p>UC_Benz, about 40% of football National Championships aren't unanimous. It doesn't make them any less impressive or noteworthy.</p>
<p>"The last unanimous national championship that USC had won was in 1972. The posters who are claiming the PAC 10 to have a monopoly on sports must have an infatuation with the 70's."</p>
<p>Hmm, this past national championship between USC and Oklahoma was promoted (not just by the Orange Bowl but by reputable sports media such as SI and ESPN) as being one of the best football matchups in history - pitting storied, undefeated teams against one another, Heisman winning qb's leading each team, the most Heisman finalists on any field, etc. </p>
<p>USC blew Oklahoma away 55-19... and STILL three press members didn't vote USC as #1 in the final poll of the year. Saying one needs to have a unanimous vote for a more legitimate national championship is downright unrealistic and not thought out very well. Considering USC is tied for the most national football championships, won the past two years, and is heavily favored to win an unprecedented third in a row, had two Heisman winners in the past three years, has a returning Heisman winning quaterback... I think it's pretty fair to say they have a monopoly on football. And sure, UCLA's greatest string of success came in the 70's. But the fact is they still have the greatest number of national championships in basketball, and its highly doubtful any program will every duplicate their run of greatness. Baseball? USC has 12 national championships... the runner-up has 5! As for other sports, as Sam pointed out, UCLA alone has more than the entire ACC. Stanford and USC are pretty darn close.</p>
<p>The Pac-10, historically, and in many cases even now (football, for one), has a monopoly on sports.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm, this past national championship between USC and Oklahoma was promoted (not just by the Orange Bowl but by reputable sports media such as SI and ESPN) as being one of the best football matchups in history - pitting storied, undefeated teams against one another, Heisman winning qb's leading each team, the most Heisman finalists on any field, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm...so? What's your point? I wasn't denying that both UCLA and USC have had great success. I don't ever remember seeing where ESPN and Sports Illustrated declared USC and UCLA monopolies.</p>
<p>And by unanimous I am not talking about the voting for each individual poll. I am talking about winning both the AP and the Coaches Poll versus winning one of them. If it doesn't make them any less prestigious then why did USC go crazy about not winning the Coaches Poll in 2003? Obviously they did not feel it was the same if they were mad because they only won the AP poll. And Alexandre, I have no idea where you are getting your data from. There have only been about 19 years out of 112 where a team has not been a unanimous national champion. That's 17% buddy.</p>
<p>And like I said before, I'm not sure some of you know what the word "monopoly" even means. If Microsoft sold the most operating systems last year and tied with Apple the year before would you be calling them a monopoly? I HIGHLY doubt it.</p>