# All arguments are Valid....Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think



## AccUbonD (Aug 18, 2012)

http://www.thepostgame.com/commenta...sto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs




> When the SEC's then #2 Alabama Crimson Tide lost at home to #1 LSU in November, however, it dropped only one space in the polls, to number three.
> 
> I was in the stadium for that 2011 alleged "game of the century" between LSU and Alabama, traveling to Tuscaloosa and paying out the - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - for a scalped ticket because I was eager to see how mighty legends of the SEC take care of business at home.
> 
> ...


----------



## AccUbonD (Aug 18, 2012)

....


> SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
> SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
> SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
> SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
> ...


----------



## fairhopebama (Aug 18, 2012)

The SEC has its heavy hitters and then they have the bottom feeders. There is no doubts hat the heavy hitters are the best in the country. We just need the bottom feeders like UT, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Miss State and Vandy to step up and contribute. These paychecks that you guys are receiving is like an Obama entitlement program.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 18, 2012)

I think as soon as the playoffs roll around we will see that the teams at the top aren't even as good as everyone thinks.  The SEC has obviously done very well in BCS Championship games, but many of those games weren't against the best teams in the country that deserved to be in the BCS game.  I'm getting sick of Oklahoma getting into the BCS game when they don't deserve it.


----------



## greene_dawg (Aug 18, 2012)

Head to head doesn't mean much when comparing conferences unless you match up the teams 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, ..., 12 vs 12. In that format I'll take the SEC to have a winning record against any conference in CFB and it's not really all that close.


----------



## greene_dawg (Aug 18, 2012)

And just for a little perspective. The quotes from the OP are from John Thompson and his book called "Better Off Without ‘Em
A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession". No agenda there eh?


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 18, 2012)

greene_dawg said:


> Head to head doesn't mean much when comparing conferences unless you match up the teams 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, ..., 12 vs 12. In that format I'll take the SEC to have a winning record against any conference in CFB and it's not really all that close.



Not sure if you remember my thread severl years ago.  It went on, and on, and on some more.  I broke down every head to head game between the PAC 10 and SEC.  I broke down the scores and the teams final conference standings at the end of the year.  I don't think your gonna like the results.  The thing that relly caught me off guard was how UCLA tipped the balance in the PAC-10's favor, and how Tennesee didn't help the SEC at ALL!  Somehow UCLA managed to do very well against the SEC when they were doing horrible in the PAC 10.  Lower finishing PAC 10 teams beat higher finishing SEC more often then the other way around.


----------



## Nitram4891 (Aug 18, 2012)

greene_dawg said:


> And just for a little perspective. The quotes from the OP are from John Thompson and his book called "Better Off Without ‘Em
> A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession". No agenda there eh?



Haven't seen you post in here in a while, welcome back!


----------



## irishleprechaun (Aug 18, 2012)

yeah, we never landed on the moon, the cia killed kennedy and there are aliens in holding tanks in New Mexico.

Seven years of conspiracy....


----------



## greene_dawg (Aug 18, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> Haven't seen you post in here in a while, welcome back!



Thanks man! Just took a little hiatus. I see little has changed around here.


----------



## irishleprechaun (Aug 18, 2012)

greene_dawg said:


> Thanks man! Just took a little hiatus. I see little has changed around here.



hmmm, GD and JetJockey both go on hiatus and return at the same time....hmmm, could they be one and the same....hmmmm....


----------



## greene_dawg (Aug 18, 2012)

irishleprechaun said:


> hmmm, GD and JetJockey both go on hiatus and return at the same time....hmmm, could they be one and the same....hmmmm....




Ha! I don't have nearly that much time on my hands.


----------



## AccUbonD (Aug 19, 2012)

It's sad how much power of persuasion major sports news has on college football now a days.

All ESPN has to do is start talking up another team in the country all year and as long as they win 10 or more games there will be a good chance they could play for a NC and nothing could go unchanged in the SEC.

Thats why the conference championship to me is more than the NC. It doesn't matter the news or voters the conference championship will always be decided on the field.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 19, 2012)

AccUbonD said:


> It's sad how much power of persuasion major sports news has on college football now a days.
> 
> All ESPN has to do is start talking up another team in the country all year and as long as they win 10 or more games there will be a good chance they could play for a NC and nothing could go unchanged in the SEC.
> 
> Thats why the conference championship to me is more than the NC. It doesn't matter the news or voters the conference championship will always be decided on the field.



which is exactly what is going on with USC right now.


----------



## AccUbonD (Aug 19, 2012)

RipperIII said:


> which is exactly what is going on with USC right now.



So Ripper which two SEC teams should play for the NC this year? Your crystal ball might be useful since no games have been played yet or I guess you could use the preseason poll that has already given a advantage to some school before the first ball is even snapped.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 19, 2012)

AccUbonD said:


> So Ripper which two SEC teams should play for the NC this year? Your crystal ball might be useful since no games have been played yet or I guess you could use the preseason poll that has already given a advantage to some school before the first ball is even snapped.




First bondy, let me try and simplify this for you,...crystal balls don't go out till the end of the season.
Pre-season polls are guesses based on last year's performances and this years projected talent.

your argument is that ESPN unduly favors the SEC, and puts the conference in favored position to maintain a high probability that some SEC will reach the NC.
USC is in that favored position based on what exactly?

The SEC has won 6 straight, 7 out of the last 9, before that ESPN had a strong Big 10, Pac 10 bias...but those conferences were taken down by SEC schools, some with 1 or more losses...and taken down badly.

Who form either of those conferences or the big 12 has beaten a top 3 SEC team in the last 9 years?


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 19, 2012)

Come on Ripper?  Taken down badly?  AU beat Oregon two years ago with a last second field goal after some VERY suspect play calling.  One play was so bad it cost OR 7 points.  Another was a toss up INT that was called out of bounds and ended up costing OR points.  Then there was the OBVIOUS delay of game penalty that wasn't called against AU, but a play that wasnt a delay of game WAS called against OR.  With all that, AU needed another questionable call to get close enough to kick a last second field goal.   Throw in the fact that it seems if there is ever a controversy on who should get to play in the NC game it seems the BCS always puts the team in who is most likely to get beat.  Washington, Texas, Utah, and USC have all been left out of the NC game when they deserved to go only to watch Oklahoma or Ohio State get the tails whipped instead.  Sometimes it's so blatantly east coast bias it's obvious.   I get sick of watching the wrong teams play in the BCS game only to get crushed.


----------



## garnede (Aug 19, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Throw in the fact that it seems if there is ever a controversy on who should get to play in the NC game it seems the BCS always puts the team in who is most likely to get beat.  Washington, Texas, Utah, and USC have all been left out of the NC game when they deserved to go only to watch Oklahoma or Ohio State get the tails whipped instead.  Sometimes it's so blatantly east coast bias it's obvious.   I get sick of watching the wrong teams play in the BCS game only to get crushed.



Don't forget to add Auburn to that list.  We had to watch USC crush Oklahoma 55-19 in the 04-05 season.  The only team to go undefeated in the SEC during the BCS era and not play for the national championship.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 19, 2012)

garnede said:


> Don't forget to add Auburn to that list.  We had to watch USC crush Oklahoma 55-19 in the 04-05 season.  The only team to go undefeated in the SEC during the BCS era and not play for the national championship.



Or we could talk about the year prior when both LSU and USC had one loss and LSU got to play undefeated OU.  How about in 2007 when LSU and USC both had 2 losses yet again USC was passed over for LSU.  Sorry, but I don't feel bad for the SEC fans one single bit when they complain that they were left out of the NC game 1 single year.  I honestly think ESPN doesn't want an SEC team playing USC in the NC game considering USC's dominance over the SEC in recent history.  Btw, up until the last bowl game the SEC's bowl record against the PAC-10 was exactly .500%.  THe game before that UW (5-3 PAC 10) blew out UF (4-3 SEC) 34-7 in the Freedom Bowl.

I could never figure it out besides most writers come from the east coast, but now it's all coming in much more clearly.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Aug 19, 2012)

Say what you want but come January it will be another SEC National Championship


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 19, 2012)

Georgia Hard Hunter said:


> Say what you want but come January it will be another SEC National Championship



Probably.  Because Bama, OU, and USC will all have one loss and USC will get passed over again, only to blow Michigan out in the Rose Bowl.  Btw, Bamas 1 loss will be to Michigan and Bama will beat OU in the BCS NC game.  Then we will hear about SEC dominance again.   The playoff can't come soon enough.  Watch how fast SEC dominance ends then.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 19, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Probably.  Because Bama, OU, and USC will all have one loss and USC will get passed over again, only to blow Michigan out in the Rose Bowl.  Btw, Bamas 1 loss will be to Michigan and Bama will beat OU in the BCS NC game.  Then we will hear about SEC dominance again.   The playoff can't come soon enough.  Watch how fast SEC dominance ends then.



who will USC lose to?


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 19, 2012)

Stanford, Oregon, or maybe even UW!  It's a lot tougher to go undefeated when you have to play one more conference game then anyone other conference.  Even in USC's glory days before the sanctions how many undefeated seasons did they have?.....  Only 2.  They have lost only 1 OOC game since 2002, and that was against UT in the 05 NC game.   The rest of their losses came at the hands of PAC-12 teams.  If they played in the SEC you all would be using that as an argument as to why the SEC is so dominate and how tough the SEC is.  Uet at the end of the day the PAC 10/12 still has a winning record against the SEC since the inception of the BCS.  So who's the better conference?  The SEC because the have more BCS NC's even though UW was left out of the BCS game in 2000 and USC was left out in 2003 and 2007?  Or the PAC-12 because they have a winning record against the SEC in the same time frame?

The BCS has always been a joke.  How else do you explain Utah not being the BCS NC several years ago when they were the only FBS team at the end of the year who was undefeated?   The article above pretty much kills the Strength of schedule myth.


----------



## flowingwell (Aug 19, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Or we could talk about the year prior when both LSU and USC had one loss and LSU got to play undefeated OU.  How about in 2007 when LSU and USC both had 2 losses yet again USC was passed over for LSU.  Sorry, but I don't feel bad for the SEC fans one single bit when they complain that they were left out of the NC game 1 single year.  I honestly think ESPN doesn't want an SEC team playing USC in the NC game considering USC's dominance over the SEC in recent history.  Btw, up until the last bowl game the SEC's bowl record against the PAC-10 was exactly .500%.  THe game before that UW (5-3 PAC 10) blew out UF (4-3 SEC) 34-7 in the Freedom Bowl.
> 
> I could never figure it out besides most writers come from the east coast, but now it's all coming in much more clearly.



I guess the NCAA wanted to prevent more issues with titles being vacated, trophies being returned, etc...  Come on man.......... USC has been proven to be as dirty as they come during the period in question.  As far as the SEC vs. PAC 10 or anyone else, I guess once you see 6 straight SEC teams win the BCS it becomes pretty foolish to argue, but some will....  Here is an easy way to win the argument....WIN against the SEC in the big game!!!


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 20, 2012)

Dang JJ, one would think that with your poor record of prognostication that you would give it up; the SEC has made a fool of you year after year.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 20, 2012)

David Mills said:


> Dang JJ, one would think that with your poor record of prognostication that you would give it up; the SEC has made a fool of you year after year.



Your right!  I forgot that Georgia beat BSU last year.  And I also forgot the absolute crushing AU laid down on Oregon two years ago.  That's the funny thing about SEC guys, they really don't seem to remember what actually happened.  The only game I have been wrong about was Oregon vs LSU last year.  Oregon laid an egg and played horrible.  But then again, they didn't go undefeated in the PAC 12 either.  You forget that even with back to back wins over Oregon, the SEC STILL has a losing record against the Pac-12 since the inception of the BCS, and up until last year the SEC was .500% in bowl games against the PAC-12.  You can't claim dominance against another conference when you have a losing record against them.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 20, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Your right!  I forgot that Georgia beat BSU last year.  And I also forgot the absolute crushing AU laid down on Oregon two years ago.  That's the funny thing about SEC guys, they really don't seem to remember what actually happened.  The only game I have been wrong about was Oregon vs LSU last year.  Oregon laid an egg and played horrible.  But then again, they didn't go undefeated in the PAC 12 either.  You forget that even with back to back wins over Oregon, the SEC STILL has a losing record against the Pac-12 since the inception of the BCS, and up until last year the SEC was .500% in bowl games against the PAC-12.  You can't claim dominance against another conference when you have a losing record against them.



I don't go around claiming dominance, You can go around and look at "all time" or past 25 years, or even the past 50 years.  Who cares what what happened 50 years ago, the only thing that counts is now and now is the BCS.

According to the BCS:
1998: Tennessee (SEC)
1999: FSU (ACC)
2000: Oklahoma (Big 12)
2001: Miami (Big East)
2002: Ohio State (Big 10)
2003: LSU (SEC)
2004: USC (Pac 10) *Vacated for cheating*
2005: Texas (Big 12)
2006: Florida (SEC)
2007: LSU (SEC)
2008: Florida (SEC)
2009: Alabama (SEC)
2010: Auburn (SEC)
2011: Alabama (SEC)

So what do we have here:
SEC: 8
Big 12: 2
ACC: 1
Big East: 1
Big 10: 1

How many does the Pac 10/12 have?  ZERO, a big goose egg.  They had 1 but lost it because of *CHEATING*.

So, as of to date, the SEC has 8 of 13 BCS championships, that’s 61.54% of BCS championships so far.  Considering there are 5 major conferences, anyone with a fifth grade level or better education can see how lop-sided this is.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 20, 2012)

Anyone with a college degree can see the blatant BCS biases. Lets look at 2000 for instance.  FSU played OU in the BCS NC.  OU was undefeated while there were 3 teams with 1 loss.  Those three teams were Washington, Miami, and FSU.  At the end of the season the BCS standings were OU #1, FSU #2, Miami #3, and UW #4.  Here's the kicker, UW beat Miami that year who beat FSU.  Miami beat the heck out of Florida (the sec champions) and UW beat Purdue in the Rose bowl.  Not only was UW left out of the NC game, they finished the year #3 in the BCS behind Miami, a team UW had already beat easily!!!!!  

The BCS is a joke, and everyone knows it.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 20, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> The BCS is a joke, and everyone knows it.



I guess that's about as good excuse as any for being a loser.

BTW, the SEC has not lost against another conference in the BCS title game,,,, ever.  Only one time an SEC team has lost in the title game and that was against another SEC team (Jan 9, 2012)


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 20, 2012)

David Mills said:


> I guess that's about as good excuse as any for being a loser.



Who's the loser?  You guys are the ones with the losing record against the PAC 12 overall.    Or do I need to bring up Utahs pummeling of Bama several years ago?  Utah was the ONLY undefeated FBS team and the embarrassed the might SEC in their BCS game.  Yet the didn't finish #1 in the country???  Are you kidding me?  Your right, there's no bias in college football. I can't WAIT for the playoff.  Btw.  I think Bamas gonna have their hands full with Michigan.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 20, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Who's the loser?  You guys are the ones with the losing record against the PAC 12 overall.    Or do I need to bring up Utahs pummeling of Bama several years ago?  Utah was the ONLY undefeated FBS team and the embarrassed the might SEC in their BCS game.  Yet the didn't finish #1 in the country???  Are you kidding me?  Your right, there's no bias in college football. I can't WAIT for the playoff.  Btw.  I think Bamas gonna have their hands full with Michigan.



Can't you come up with any new material, your arguments are old, disproven, and totally worn out.

Pathetic 12 = *ZERO* BCS championships, that says it all.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 20, 2012)

Wait till the playoffs!   Wait till the playoffs!!!  The. The SEC won't be able to hide behind teams who shouldn't even be in the BCS game.  Then the game will truely be won or lost on the field.  But then again, we've already seen that with the SEC's losing record against the PAC-12.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 20, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Wait till the playoffs!   Wait till the playoffs!!!  The. The SEC won't be able to hide behind teams who shouldn't even be in the BCS game.  Then the game will truely be won or lost on the field.  But then again, we've already seen that with the SEC's losing record against the PAC-12.



What are you going to say when the SEC has 2 teams in the playoff.

What's funny is just a few years back Mike Slive (SEC commish) tried to get the other conferences to back him in a playoff, but the Pathetic 12 (and others) didn't want a playoff.  Kinda funny that these lesser conferences are crying for one now that the SEC has been dominating.


----------



## irishleprechaun (Aug 20, 2012)

they should change the conf name to the Pac 0...


----------



## Catdaddy SC (Aug 20, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Wait till the playoffs!   Wait till the playoffs!!!  The. The SEC won't be able to hide behind teams who shouldn't even be in the BCS game.  Then the game will truely be won or lost on the field.  But then again, we've already seen that with the SEC's losing record against the PAC-12.



The SEC won't be hiding. They welcome it with open arms.


The problem is ,the ones complaining about the BCS formulas now, will be complaining about the new systems selection process, when it goes into effect.

You can bank on that.


----------



## AccUbonD (Aug 20, 2012)

Catdaddy SC said:


> The SEC won't be hiding. They welcome it with open arms.
> 
> 
> The problem is ,the ones complaining about the BCS formulas now, will be complaining about the new systems selection process, when it goes into effect.
> ...




And I'm one of them


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 20, 2012)

AccUbonD said:


> And I'm one of them




unnecessary redundancy....We all know...


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 20, 2012)

Catdaddy SC said:


> The SEC won't be hiding. They welcome it with open arms.
> 
> 
> The problem is ,the ones complaining about the BCS formulas now, will be complaining about the new systems selection process, when it goes into effect.
> ...



The SEC will get exposed for what they are, and the chances of two SEC teams making it to the playoffs will be slim.  The SEC is a very good conference, but they are no more dominate then anyone else.  When the top 4 teams actually have to play for the championship, and the SEC's run ends, they will lose their favoritism.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 20, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> The SEC will get exposed for what they are, and the chances of two SEC teams making it to the playoffs will be slim.  The SEC is a very good conference, but they are no more dominate then anyone else.  When the top 4 teams actually have to play for the championship, and the SEC's run ends, they will lose their favoritism.



The SEC's run will eventually end,...but not due to a play-off system,...all runs end.


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 20, 2012)

greene_dawg said:


> Thanks man! Just took a little hiatus. I see little has changed around here.



Not much has changed. The mustard got spilled, Bama won another National Championship, and the volunteers still suck. Welcome back.


----------



## bruiserbuckgrower (Aug 20, 2012)

So just out of curiousity who didn't think bama and Lsu were the 2 best teams last year, and what happens when there are 2 sec teams in the new play offs, all runs come to an end but over the last 15 years the top teams in the sec have been dominant.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

bruiserbuckgrower said:


> So just out of curiousity who didn't think bama and Lsu were the 2 best teams last year, and what happens when there are 2 sec teams in the new play offs, all runs come to an end but over the last 15 years the top teams in the sec have been dominant.



I remember the last time the two top SEC teams were supposed to be dominate.  Everyone on here thought UF should have played Bama in a repeat of the SEC Championship game because they were the two most dominate teams in the Nation.  We then got to see how great Bama was when they got rolled over by lowely little Utah!  If we are going to let computers and people decide who the best teams are without playing the game on the field, then why even play the game?  BTW, USC was just as good as LSU or Bama by the end of the season, and had they not been on sanctions, they most likely would have been the PAC-10 champions.   So no, I don't think LSU and Bama were the two best teams in the Nation.  Heck, at the end of the season I think Oregon was just as good as well.


And BtW.  USC has easily been the single most dominate college football team over the last 10 years.  And they have owned the SEC in that time.   Yet they have never been allowed to play in the NC game against an SEC team.  I wonder why?


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 21, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> USC has easily been the single most dominate college football team over the last 10 years.



OK, the proof is in the pudding,,,, how many NCs does USC have in that time frame?

This is a very simple, straight forward question, just give me the number.


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 21, 2012)

I'll save him from the lies......That number is a big fat zero (00000000),zereaux, nada, none, zip.  2004 title forfeited due to cheating. It's all Bama and the gators in past ten years. Roll Tide.


----------



## bamaboy (Aug 21, 2012)

Who is in charge of the BCS? How does the BCS decide who goes to the NC game? I say the SEC would welcome a playoff series because then people that claim "we ain't all that" would have their mouths shut and would be forced to bow down to the SEC!!!! Bring them playoffs WE welcome it with open arms!! oh by the way "BAMA NATION IS #1" ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!! NICK SABAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

David Mills said:


> OK, the proof is in the pudding,,,, how many NCs does USC have in that time frame?
> 
> This is a very simple, straight forward question, just give me the number.





Matthew6 said:


> I'll save him from the lies......That number is a big fat zero (00000000),zereaux, nada, none, zip.  2004 title forfeited due to cheating. It's all Bama and the gators in past ten years. Roll Tide.



I have to be honest.  I really do!  You guys seem to think you know a lot about football but you seem to not know about football.   To answer your questions, the answer is 1.  And they had 1 vacated.  How quickly you forget the SPLIT NC in 2003 when USC was left out of the BCS game.  Are you even aware that in 2003 at the end of the season USC was #1 in BOTH the Coaches poll AND the AP poll!  LSU was #2 and OU was #3.  OU got beat 35-7 by Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game yet the still knocked out USC for the BCS game.  Why?  Because of the BCS computer........... Do you guys even know anything about college football or do Bama fans memories only go back to the beatin they took from lowly little Utah?


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

But, if you'd like to break it down even further....  Read-em and weep boys!


Oregon and Auburn squared off the national championship last season. Photo by Kirby Lee-US PRESSWIRE

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the sixth installment of our 24 Hours of Arizona Football Blogging — one post at the top of every hour. Keep checking back at TucsonCitizen.com through Friday at 11 a.m. or follow the entire series with the “24 hours of blogging” tag.

Oregon vs. LSU is the premier game of the glorious first week (aren’t they all?) of college football, picking up where last season left off.
The SEC vs. the Pac-10 … or, as we should say now, the Pac-12.
The conferences don’t often play against each other, magnifying the bragging rights for each such matchup. Last season’s BCS national championship game between Auburn and Oregon was the first time the leagues had played in the postseason since the 1989 Freedom Bowl.
Starting with the 2000 season — isn’t that a large enough sample size? — there have been a smattering of regular-season meetings, including five pitting ranked teams against each other (plus the BCS title game).
The biggest regular-season game, by the rankings: No. 8 USC at No. 6 Auburn to start the 2003 season. The Trojans won 23-0 and went on to win the AP national championship.
This week’s game is bigger: Oregon is ranked third, LSU is fourth.
Who has fared better in the head-to-head matchups between the leagues?

Probably to the surprise of those in the South, the correct answer is the Pac-12.
There has been a disconnect between perception and reality when it comes to the two leagues. They have met 22 times since 2000, with the Pac-12 winning 12 of them.
Let’s look deeper.
The SEC was favored to win 13 of those 22 games … but won only nine times as the favorite.
Overall, the Pac-12 is 14-6-2 against the spread in its last 22 games against the SEC.
Head-to-head or against the spread, the Pac-10 comes out ahead.
Here is the breakdown of those 22 games:
Year	 Matchup	 Result	 Spread
2000	 No. 3 Alabama at UCLA	 UCLA, 35-24	 Alabama by 7
2001	 No. 17 UCLA at No. 25 Alabama	 UCLA, 20-17	 Alabama by 2
2002	 Auburn at No. 19 USC	 USC, 24-17	 USC by 7
2002	 Mississippi State at No. 15 Oregon	 Oregon, 36-13	 Oregon by 13
2003	 No. 13 LSU at Arizona	 LSU, 59-13	 LSU by 11
2003	 No. 8 USC at No. 6 Auburn	 USC, 23-0	 Auburn by 3
2003	 Oregon at Mississippi State	 Oregon, 42-34	 Oregon by 3
2004	 Oregon State at No. 4 LSU	 LSU, 22-21, OT	 LSU by 18
2005	 No. 5 LSU at No. 15 Arizona State	 LSU, 35-31	 ASU by 1
2005	 Arkansas at No. 1 USC	 USC 70-17	 USC by 30
2006	 Arizona at No. 8 LSU	 LSU, 45-3	 LSU by 15
2006	 No. 9 Cal at No. 23 Tennessee	 Tennessee, 35-18	 Cal by 2
2006	 No. 6 USC at Arkansas	 USC, 50-14	 USC by 7
2006	 Washington State at No. 4 Auburn	 Auburn, 40-14	 Auburn by 14
2007	 No. 15 Tennessee at No. 12 Cal	 Cal, 45-31	 Cal by 6
2008	 No. 18 Tennessee at UCLA	 UCLA, 27-24 (OT)	 Tennessee by 7.5
2008	 No. 3 Georgia at Arizona State	 Georgia, 27-10	 Georgia by 7
2009	 No. 11 LSU at Washington	 LSU, 31-23	 LSU by 17.5
2009	 UCLA at Tennessee	 UCLA, 19-15	 Tennessee by 8
2009	 Arizona State at No. 21 Georgia	 Georgia, 20-17	 Georgia by 7
2010	 No. 7 Oregon at Tennessee	 Oregon, 48-13	 Oregon by 10.5
2011	 No. 2 Oregon vs. No. 1 Auburn	 Auburn, 22-19	 Auburn by 3
More in TC Sports Network:
2012 Golf Watch List
READ IT »
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 1st, 2011 at 4:55 pm and is filed under Sports. Tags for this post: 24 hours of blogging, Pac-12, SEC.	 You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

Now, I want you guys to read that REALLY carefully!  Do you notice how many times lower ranked PAC-10/12 teams beat higher ranked SEC teams?  Did you notice how many time lower ranked SEC teams beat higher ranked PAC 10 teams?

Now, go back to your fairy tale world Davis Mills, other wise were gonna send unranked UCLA over to beat your #3 Bama.  Just like they did last time they SWEPT you in your 2 game series!!!!


----------



## irishleprechaun (Aug 21, 2012)

you have to post 3 times in a row because no one is buying in to your silly logic.  Sorry, 6 in a row is 6 in a row no matter what your spin is


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 21, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Now, I want you guys to read that REALLY carefully!  Do you notice how many times lower ranked PAC-10/12 teams beat higher ranked SEC teams?  Did you notice how many time lower ranked SEC teams beat higher ranked PAC 10 teams?
> 
> Now, go back to your fairy tale world Davis Mills, other wise were gonna send unranked UCLA over to beat your #3 Bama.  Just like they did last time they SWEPT you in your 2 game series!!!!



First, my name is not Davis, I'm surprised that someone of your self-proclaimed intelligence and superiority can't even read/spell my name when I have it already spelled out for you and all you need to do is copy & paste.

I see you couldn't (or wouldn't) answer my question.  If finishing at something less than #1 is what you want to brag about, please go right ahead.  Goes right along with your being a PATHETIC-12 fan.


----------



## Madsnooker (Aug 21, 2012)

RipperIII said:


> First bondy, let me try and simplify this for you,...crystal balls don't go out till the end of the season.
> Pre-season polls are guesses based on last year's performances and this years projected talent.
> 
> your argument is that ESPN unduly favors the SEC, and puts the conference in favored position to maintain a high probability that some SEC will reach the NC.
> ...



I recall OSU doing it just a couple of years ago.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

David Mills.  PLEASE go read post #46 again!   Very, very slowly.  I answered your question!!  Now, answer me a question.  If the SEC is so far superior, why do you have a losing record against the PAC-10/12 since 2000?  And don't tell me how high ranked PAC 10 teams beat up on low ranked SEC teams.  Because if you read the article above, and compare head to head games, it was typically low ranked Pac-10 teams beating higher ranked SEC teams.  Heck, if OSU's kicker could kick a PAT, there would have been two unranked PAC-10 teams beating top 5 ranked SEC teams.


Hey Ripper, do you wanna go back 12 years?  I bet ya don't!  And does Utah count?


----------



## flowingwell (Aug 21, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> But, if you'd like to break it down even further....  Read-em and weep boys!
> 
> 
> Oregon and Auburn squared off the national championship last season. Photo by Kirby Lee-US PRESSWIRE
> ...



Something about this math seems off to me?  I though 70 - 17 is 53?  I guess I went to one of those dumb SEC schools and had it wrong all this time.


----------



## Madsnooker (Aug 21, 2012)

As all of you know, I'm hardly a Pac 12 fan.

With that said, that head to head Jockey posted I don't believe can just be overlooked. That was clearly in the Pacs favor and it was lessor pac temas beating higher ranked SEC teams.

I will also add, USC should have clearly been in 1 or 2 othet BCS games and I have no problem believing they probably win those games with the talent they had. Not sure why they didn't get in other than the BCS sucked but who knows.

The sec BCS wins is impressive as well but Oklahoma could have easily beat Bama or UF and Oregon could have beaten AU. Those were evenly matched teams from what I saw.

Bottom line is the SEC did win those games and they are on top right now. No argument from me.

Something tells me change is in the air though.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

flowingwell said:


> Something about this math seems off to me?  I though 70 - 17 is 53?  I guess I went to one of those dumb SEC schools and had it wrong all this time.



I could jump ALL over your comment about the SEC right now, but I'll will take the higher ground.   The number on the right was the spread.


----------



## tigerfan (Aug 21, 2012)

Supporting data that the SEC is that good....

2011
2010
2009
2008

need I keep going?


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

Mad.  The PAC-10/12 doesn't get in typically because of the computers. They are the only automatic BCS conference (with the exception of the big east) who hasnt had a one loss team make the BCS NC game.   Heck, in 2000 three teams finished with one loss.  UW, Miami, and FSU.  In head to head that year UW beat Miami, who beat FSU, yet somehow FSU got to play Oklahoma in the BCS game.  Explain that one to me.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 21, 2012)

Read it and weep JJ, this is Bama's record against the Pathetic, 8-10-12 since 1970.  40 years is more telling than your selective 13 years (in which Bama played UCLA 2 times while on probation).  Unless I missed a game, there have been 12 games between Bama and the pathetic whatever number it was at the time, Bama's record is 8-4.

This is all I really care about. I'm not like you, I don't jump from team to team.

1970 Loss USC	21-42
1971 Win USC 17-10
1973 Win California 66-0
1975 Win Washington 52-0
1976 Win UCLA 36-6
1977 Win USC 21-20 
23 1978 Loss USC 14-24
1978 Win Washington 20-17
1985 Win USC	24-3
1986 Win Washington 28-6
2000 Loss UCLA 24-35
2001 Loss UCLA 17-20


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

Better yet Davis Mills.  Bama's all time winning percentage against the PAC-12 is .673%.   However, Bama's all time winning percentage against the SEC??????????   .676!!!!   In other words, all time Bama has a better record against the SEC then they do the PAC-12.   Albeit not by much!!    Hhhhhmmmmm!!!


----------



## GTHunter007 (Aug 21, 2012)

As long as ANY part of the Championships is not decided on the field...there will be an argument. Computer scores, talking heads voting...its about TV ratings, not about determining who is number 1, and anyone who denies that is clueless.  You don't hear people crying about college basketball's national champion.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 21, 2012)

GTHunter007 said:


> As long as ANY part of the Championships is not decided on the field...there will be an argument. Computer scores, talking heads voting...its about TV ratings, not about determining who is number 1, and anyone who denies that is clueless.  You don't hear people crying about college basketball's national champion.



EXACTLY!!!!!  While I'm not a fan of the new playoff, it's a heck of a lot better than the BCS.  Right now the BCS is a popularity contest with a computer, and it proves nothing.  It should be black and white.  If you win your conference, you should get to make a playoff for the NC, if you don't win your conference, your out of luck.  At the beginning of the season everyone knows exactly what it takes.  Win the conference, win the playoff games, win the NC.  It really is that simple.


----------



## riprap (Aug 21, 2012)

I've never understood the love affair for a certain conference.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 22, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> EXACTLY!!!!!  While I'm not a fan of the new playoff, it's a heck of a lot better than the BCS.  Right now the BCS is a popularity contest with a computer, and it proves nothing.  It should be black and white.  If you win your conference, you should get to make a playoff for the NC, if you don't win your conference, your out of luck.  At the beginning of the season everyone knows exactly what it takes.  Win the conference, win the playoff games, win the NC.  It really is that simple.




you better go look at the NFL,...if you want the best teams, you will never convince me that any particular conference champ is superior to any other 2nd place team, happens form time to time, but so does the contrary.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 22, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> I recall OSU doing it just a couple of years ago.



hope you are not referring to Arkansas.


----------



## Madsnooker (Aug 22, 2012)

RipperIII said:


> hope you are not referring to Arkansas.



Yes I am. Do you want me to bring up the thread with almost all of you sec guys saying they were playing the best ball by the end of the season and was definitely in the top 3 of the conference. OSU had no chance against them Bla Bla Bla before the game. If Tressel doesn't go Tressel on OSU's offense calling only 4 passes in the intire second half just running up the middle OSU could have won by 30. 

Let me guess, it doesn't fit your argument so now Arkansas was weak. Don't tell me about the win being taken away. They played the game and everyone knows who won. 

Also, not trying to defend JJ but he does make very logical arguments for those that look at this objectively. You can always tell when good points are made becuase than insults start comming out. Its just a game and fans are passionate. His post showing the last 10 years becuase, that is what you guys brought up (BCS era), doesn't support your argument, at least head to head. I hate the Pac 10 but I don't argue against real games played though. That makes one look foolish.

Case in point. Utah destroyed Bama. I know, Bama wasn't ready, Bama didn't want to play, etc garbage. The bottom line is, most Bama fans did give Utah SOME respect becuase of what happened even though they still thought Bama was better. Eyes were opened that, hey, those boys were tougher than we thought. The problem is, that only happened because THE GAME WAS PLAYED!!! If that game had never been played, there is no way anyone could have ever convinced one single Bama fan that Utah could hang even one quarter much less an entire game, EVEN IF BAMA didn't want to be there. YOU KNOW THAT IS A FACT!!! The game was played and it wasn't really close. Yea Bama came back in the second half because they were a very good team but then Utah smacked them around late in the game again showing that game was not a fluke. UTAH was a great team that year regardless of your perception. Thank godness that game DID happen. There are other teams that I think have been ripped and didn't get the oportunity they should have. Boise having to play TCU a couple of years ago in a bowl game was an absolute joke. Those 2 teams should have been playing major powerhouses in bowl games. No way those in Power were going to let that happen, becuase if both teams would have won (which I feel was highly likely) it would have turned the BCS on its head. Those that don't believe this are nieve to the power and money that guides decisions made every year.  

With that said, the sec has been on a magnificent run with regards to the NC game and I have no problem giving them their due. They have been the best conference of late.

Something tells me change is in the air though as I said earlier.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 22, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> Yes I am. Do you want me to bring up the thread with almost all of you sec guys saying they were playing the best ball by the end of the season and was definitely in the top 3 of the conference. OSU had no chance against them Bla Bla Bla before the game. If Tressel doesn't go Tressel on OSU's offense calling only 4 passes in the intire second half just running up the middle OSU could have won by 30.
> 
> Let me guess, it doesn't fit your argument so now Arkansas was weak. Don't tell me about the win being taken away. They played the game and everyone knows who one.
> 
> ...



as I recall, OSU squeaked by with a team full of ineligible players...oh, and when I double checked the books,...OSU lost...


----------



## MCBUCK (Aug 22, 2012)

IIRC...Bama had about 78 offensive linemen either suspended or ineligible for that game, and everybody in the country knew it.  They were never going to win that game; their offensive line was dominant, and was their strength that year.  They were doomed from about week before the SECCG, and everyone knew it.


----------



## Madsnooker (Aug 22, 2012)

RipperIII said:


> as I recall, OSU squeaked by with a team full of ineligible players...oh, and when I double checked the books,...OSU lost...


----------



## bruiserbuckgrower (Aug 22, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> But, if you'd like to break it down even further....  Read-em and weep boys!
> 
> 
> Oregon and Auburn squared off the national championship last season. Photo by Kirby Lee-US PRESSWIRE
> ...



The all time sec vrs pac 10 record is 64-40-5 SEC history doesnt lie


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 22, 2012)

Who cares what happened 50+ years ago.  We are talking BCS era.  I'm under no illusion that all time the Pac-12 has a winning record against the SEC.  But we are talking about recent history, not what happened when my grandpa was a kid.


----------



## bruiserbuckgrower (Aug 22, 2012)

Just figured you would want to know the correct record


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 22, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Who cares what happened 50+ years ago.  We are talking BCS era.  I'm under no illusion that all time the Pac-12 has a winning record against the SEC.  But we are talking about recent history, not what happened when my grandpa was a kid.



In the past 10 years no PAC 12 team has won a BCS title.


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 22, 2012)

Matthew6 said:


> In the past 10 years no PAC 12 team has won a BCS title.


The sec has won six in a row.


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 22, 2012)

Since 1992, the sec has won 10 national championships.


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 22, 2012)

Matthew6 said:


> Since 1992, the sec has won 10 national championships.



The PAC 12 have not won a sanctioned national title game since 1992.


----------



## Matthew6 (Aug 22, 2012)

Tennessee sucks.


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 22, 2012)

Make no mistake about it, USC destroyed OU in the BCS NC game.  But don't worry, change is in the air boys.


----------



## RipperIII (Aug 22, 2012)

Jetjockey said:


> Make no mistake about it, USC destroyed OU in the BCS NC game.  But don't worry, change is in the air boys.



who hasn't "destroyed" OU in a bowl game?


----------



## Jetjockey (Aug 23, 2012)

RipperIII said:


> who hasn't "destroyed" OU in a bowl game?



The SEC sure hasn't during the BCS years.  Unless you call a 10 point win " destroying" someone.


----------



## irishleprechaun (Aug 23, 2012)

Go PAC-0!!!


----------

