<p>
[quote]
I really don't like ASU's QB, I think he's a primadonna.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can anyone in the football world named Rudy be a primadonna? LOL...Rudy, Rudy, Rudy! ;)</p>
<p>HAHA, not THAT Rudy (one of my fav movies, btw). I know, I actually thought of the same thing lol.</p>
<p>HOLLA!!! They are putting the Arizona State vs. Oregon game on ESPN..wooooohooooooooo</p>
<p>I wonder if Gameday is going to Autzen???? They should, it's gotta be the biggest matchup of the week. that'd be so awesome, great recognition for the Pac-10.</p>
<p>I know..2 times in one year would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>when was the other time? for the cal game, right?</p>
<p>nope, they went to Autzen for the first time in it's history when it was Oregon vs. Michigan</p>
<p>but maybe they did do cal....</p>
<p>the gameday crew will be in eugene this weekend.</p>
<p>HAHA, sweet. where'd you find that out? on ESPN's website?</p>
<p>sheed: the UO-UM game was at the Big House this year, so they couldn't have done it at Autzen lol!</p>
<p>damnit........it was when we played Cal at Autzen</p>
<p>What are you going to put on your Gameday sign, Sheed?</p>
<p>Guess it's one game too late for "Dixon your Booty".</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Who said the Pac-10 is a weak conference?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I was the one</p>
<p>How about "Dixon your carpenter"?</p>
<p>bob: thanks, that was a real knee-slapper.</p>
<p>"Dixon your carpenter"</p>
<p>lol.....NOT, I'm not sure, but i'll figure it out...at least one of my friends will plan something clever enough...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the Pac-10 is better than the SEC this year actually, college grad. some people are just so wrapped up in the lure of the SEC that they fail to admit that some other conference might actually be more superior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still think that, overall, the SEC probably has the edge over the Pac-10. Granted, it's not a huge edge. But it's still an edge. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. I mentioned previously that the Pac-10 is one of the few conferences that can boast half of its members obtaining AP votes. Well, the SEC just so happens to be one of those few other conferences. In fact, the SEC has over half of its members not just receiving AP votes, but actually in the top 25 {The SEC has 12 schools, and 7 of them - LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina - are all currently in the top 25). The SEC also has an 8th school (Kentucky) that is also receiving AP votes. Hence, 2/3 of the entire conference is receiving votes. </p>
<p>Granted, the Pac-10 does have important non-conference victories, like Cal beating Tennessee and Oregon beating Michigan. On the other hand, the Pac-10 also has ignomonious non-conference losses, like UCLA getting buried by Utah, or Arizona losing to both BYU and New Mexico. </p>
<p>No doubt, the worst teams in both conferences (Washington, Mississippi) are terrible. But top-to-bottom, I would still have to admit that the SEC is still a tougher conference than is the Pac-10. I wish it wasn't true, but it seems to be true.</p>
<p>Well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I truly believe that the reason some of those SEC teams are ranked is bc voters are still stuck on the SEC's recent history. They are unwilling to admit that some teams who are unranked might be better than 3-loss SEC teams. They keep telling themselves that those 3-loss teams have lost bc the conference is tough, without admitting that maybe they just aren't as good this year. I think WA would beat MS, by they way.</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Besides Mississippi, every member of the SEC has an overall winning record. Hence, only 1/12 members in the conference have a losing record. Not so in the Pac-10: 4 out of the 10 Pac-10 members have overall losing records. So we're talking about 8.3% of the members of the SEC vs. 40% in the Pac-10. That's a pretty big difference. </p>
<p>Note, I don't think it's a simple matter of the SEC just playing (and beating up on) weaker teams than does the Pac-10, as the Pac-10 certainly hasn't been shy in beating up on tomato cans too. For example, Stanford, Washington State, and Arizona have played "powerhouses" like San Jose State, San Diego State, and Northern Arizona. Yet even so, Stanford, Washington State and Arizona still can't compile an overall winning record.</p>
<p>
[quote]
truly believe that the reason some of those SEC teams are ranked is bc voters are still stuck on the SEC's recent history.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think they're that stuck on SEC history and biased against the Pac-10. at least, not undeservedly so. After all, these are the same voters who had anointed USC as the pre-season #1 team when it's now quite obvious that USC really isn't that good this year (at least, relative to USC standards). These are the same voters who had granted Cal the #2 ranking, and probably would have granted the #1 ranking to Cal, when I think it's unfortunately now quite clear that Cal clearly did not deserve such a lofty position. </p>
<p>The point is, I don't see that the voters hold any significant anti-Pac-10 bias. Seems to me that the voters are quite willing to grant undeservedly high rankings to Pac-10 teams.</p>
<p>ok, if that's what you think, you're entitled to your opinion (not like you're gonna switch to mine anyway lol).</p>
<p>So, who has the best/worst jerseys in the Pac-10?</p>
<p>Best: Cal's yellow (undef!, but I'm biased), UCLA's baby blue
Worst: USC...that red is obnoxious, Oregon all-white (helmet included)</p>
<p>lol..Oregon has 384 different combinations of jerseys, pants, and helmets</p>
<p>anyways...i don't really have a reason but</p>
<p>PAC10>>>>>>>>>SEC
what happened Nebraska?
what happened Michigan?
what happened Tennessee?</p>