# Dead Duck.



## Chris 195 7/8 B&C (Oct 3, 2014)

Arizona just knocked off #2 Oregon. 
Going to be some changes in the polls and the Heisman race.


----------



## nickel back (Oct 3, 2014)

31-24.......nice job Arizona


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Wow


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Ugly stat-

It was the third time since 2007 that an unranked Wildcats team upset an Oregon squad ranked in the top five.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2014)

Where is JJ?


----------



## GASeminole (Oct 3, 2014)

Rich Rod knows how to coach up those scrappy players who didn't get offers from major programs (WVa)


----------



## Throwback (Oct 3, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Where is JJ?



He will come tell us he hasnt said anything about ory-gun 


T


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Where is JJ?



Welcome to the PAC-12.  It wasn't a matter of if Oregon would lose.  The only question is who they would lose to.


----------



## cafish (Oct 3, 2014)

ducks where overrated anyway--a program has to build a decent schedule against ranked teams--not just be backed by one of the richest alumni in the sport---but they stay pretty


----------



## Dub (Oct 3, 2014)

First of a couple large shake-ups this weekend, I'll wager.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Welcome to the PAC-12.  It wasn't a matter of if Oregon would lose.  The only question is who they would lose to.



So predictable.  

Talk about underachieving!  Losing to un-ranked Arizona 3 times since 2007, when Oregon was ranked in the top 5.  Next question, does Oregon belong in the top 15?


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

No surprise here.  Oregon plays in a 2nd tier conference that helps to inflate its stats.

They are the new overrated media darling.  ND then USC held this status once, now it's Ducks.  

Welcome back to reality, Oregon.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> No surprise here.  Oregon plays in a 2nd tier conference that helps to inflate its stats.
> 
> They are the new overrated media darling.  ND then USC held this status once, now it's Ducks.
> 
> Welcome back to reality, Oregon.



should they fall to 15ish in the polls, or closer to 20 or so?


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> No surprise here.  Oregon plays in a 2nd tier conference that helps to inflate its stats.
> 
> They are the new overrated media darling.  ND then USC held this status once, now it's Ducks.
> 
> Welcome back to reality, Oregon.



Oregon loses to Arizona, shows PAC12 is weak conference.  aTm nearly loses to Ark and UGA eeks out a win over Tenn (who was throttled by OKL the previous week), it shows the strenght and depth of the SEC.

Can't have it both ways.  Which is it?


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

They probably have a solid top 20 program.  Hard to tell with the low level of competition they play.

I'd drop them to around 20, but the polls are more forgiving for overranked teams and programs.

Course, so far, it's hard to rank this year's LSU squad.  They are 1-1 in meaningful games.


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> Oregon loses to Arizona, shows PAC12 is weak conference.  aTm nearly loses to Ark and UGA eeks out a win over Tenn (who was throttled by OKL the previous week), it shows the strenght and depth of the SEC.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.  Which is it?



Easy.  Pac 12 is weak, top to bottom.  SEC is loaded, top to bottom.

Both conferences have teams top to bottom that are close to equally matched.  Pac 12 are all weak and close to each other.  Occasionally 1 team stands as the strongest of the weakest.

SEC teams are close in talent and are all highly talented. 

There is the smartest kid at the most prestigious university, and there is the smartest kid at the diesel driving academy.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> Oregon loses to Arizona, shows PAC12 is weak conference.  aTm nearly loses to Ark and UGA eeks out a win over Tenn (who was throttled by OKL the previous week), it shows the strenght and depth of the SEC.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.  Which is it?



I think it shows that Oregon lacks depth, much like UGA in certain areas (wr's and db's in particular).


----------



## fairhopebama (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> Easy.  Pac 12 is weak, top to bottom.  SEC is loaded, top to bottom.
> 
> Both conferences have teams top to bottom that are close to equally matched.  Pac 12 are all weak and close to each other.  Occasionally 1 team stands as the strongest of the weakest.
> 
> ...



I think the last analogy probably cleared it up for him..


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

I think it shows that the PAC-12 is an incredibly tough conference to play in, and that's why it's so rare for a team to go undefeated.  Happens EVERY year.  Oregon is a very good football team.  But they haven't even won the PAC-12 the last two years. 

But of course, if this was the SEC, you guys would be ranting and raving how tough the SEC is.  When it happens in other conferences, it shows the conferences weekness!  Hypocritical to say the least.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

When WSU almost beat Auburn last year, did that show how week Auburn was, or how good WSU could play?  When Oregon throttled Tenn last year, did that show how week Tenn was or how good Oregon was?


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> When WSU almost beat Auburn last year, did that show how week Auburn was, or how good WSU could play?  When Oregon throttled Tenn last year, did that show how week Tenn was or how good Oregon was?



UGA should have beaten Auburn last year.  I believe many of us were saying that Auburn was overrated.


----------



## Throwback (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> When WSU almost beat Auburn last year, did that show how week Auburn was, or how good WSU could play?  When Oregon throttled Tenn last year, did that show how week Tenn was or how good Oregon was?



Weak not week 


T


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> When WSU almost beat Auburn last year, did that show how week Auburn was, or how good WSU could play?  When Oregon throttled Tenn last year, did that show how week Tenn was or how good Oregon was?



What did it say about UTsa almost beating Arizona this year?  I believe UTsa played Arizona closer than Oregon did.


----------



## Dub (Oct 3, 2014)

I'll bet it was tough sitting in their locker room afterwards.....the loss sinking in....heads hung low....then they start looking around at each other and see all that pink they had on.....ouch.  


Next game will have them wearing all black or something.


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> When WSU almost beat Auburn last year, did that show how week Auburn was, or how good WSU could play?  When Oregon throttled Tenn last year, did that show how week Tenn was or how good Oregon was?




It shows what we've been saying all along.  You cannot rate a program or a team on ONE game.   There are colossal upsets all the time.  

What defines a good team is playing good competition and winning.  The SEC has this in its conference, the Pac 12 does not.  If a Pac 12 team played 8 SEC schools each year, they would 1) get better, 2) have an overall losing record in those 8 games.

It's not about the one-hit-wonders.  It's about the complete body of work.

Just because The Vapors had one hit (Turning Japanese) top the charts does not make them a better band than the Who, just because their song was better on the Top 40 that one week back in the 1980s.

Sure, they may have been the top band for a long time in the little town that they came from, and that one week they topped everyone.  Doesn't mean they belong in the same league.

It's ok if you like the Vapors.  We understand.  They rose to the top that one time and they and their fans should be proud.  Just don't think the rest of us will ever agree that they are a better band than The Who.


----------



## Barry Duggan (Oct 3, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Next question, does Oregon belong in the top 15?



Right behind Ga. Tech


----------



## rhbama3 (Oct 3, 2014)

I'm not saying anything. NOBODY looks invincible so far this year, including my beloved Crimson Tide.


----------



## SpotandStalk (Oct 3, 2014)

rhbama3 said:


> I'm not saying anything. NOBODY looks invincible so far this year, including my beloved Crimson Tide.



x2. 

Well except for Miss St.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

rhbama3 said:


> I'm not saying anything. NOBODY looks invincible so far this year, including my beloved Crimson Tide.



That's why you don't hear fans of FSU, Bama, Auburn, or Oklahoma dancing on Oregon's grave.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

No clear frontrunner is what I said after week 5.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> No clear frontrunner is what I said after week 5.



Just win and try to get better each week.  All that matters is being the best at the end of the year.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> It shows what we've been saying all along.  You cannot rate a program or a team on ONE game.   There are colossal upsets all the time.
> 
> What defines a good team is playing good competition and winning.  The SEC has this in its conference, the Pac 12 does not.  If a Pac 12 team played 8 SEC schools each year, they would 1) get better, 2) have an overall losing record in those 8 games.
> 
> ...



Didn't Missu and A&M prove that theory 100% wrong already?  Not to mention the actual head to head record of the SEC vs PAC-12 in the BCS era.  Remember when you guys said A&M would be a one hit wonder when they had Manziel?   What happened?  Based on the actual head to head games last year, And Auburn barely getting by WSU at home, I think any PAC-12 team would do better in the SEC then hey do the PAC-12.  JUST LIKE Mizzu and A&M have done!


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Didn't Missu and A&M prove that theory 100% wrong already?  Not to mention the actual head to head record of the SEC vs PAC-12 in the BCS era.  Remember when you guys said A&M would be a one hit wonder when they had Manziel?   What happened?  Based on the actual head to head games last year, And Auburn barely getting by WSU at home, I think any PAC-12 team would do better in the SEC then hey do the PAC-12.  JUST LIKE Mizzu and A&M have done!



Didn't Arizona barely get past UTsa this year?


----------



## fairhopebama (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Didn't Missu and A&M prove that theory 100% wrong already?  Not to mention the actual head to head record of the SEC vs PAC-12 in the BCS era.  Remember when you guys said A&M would be a one hit wonder when they had Manziel?   What happened?  Based on the actual head to head games last year, And Auburn barely getting by WSU at home, I think any PAC-12 team would do better in the SEC then hey do the PAC-12.  JUST LIKE Mizzu and A&M have done!



Have Missu or A&M won the SEC yet? Missu went to the SECGC and got beat by 17.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

fairhope said:


> Have Missu or A&M won the SEC yet? Missu went to the SECGC and got beat by 17.



Hush.  OnObamasjockey won't listen to that kind of talk.  The Pac 12 is always being hosed, just ask him.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

fairhope said:


> Have Missu or A&M won the SEC yet? Missu went to the SECGC and got beat by 17.





rex upshaw said:


> Hush.  OnObamasjockey won't listen to that kind of talk.  The Pac 12 is always being hosed, just ask him.



Making it to the Championship game is a heck of a lot better then they did in the Big-12, or have you guys forgotten that already?   Didn't Mizzu lose to Indiana of the Big-10, and then turn around and BEAT South Carolina?  How is that even possible?


----------



## hayseed_theology (Oct 3, 2014)

rhbama3 said:


> I'm not saying anything. NOBODY looks invincible so far this year, including my beloved Crimson Tide.



Agreed.



SpotandStalk said:


> x2.
> 
> Well except for Miss St.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

fairhope said:


> Missu went to the SECGC



I think that qualifies as competing.


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Making it to the Championship game is a heck of a lot better then they did in the Big-12, or have you guys forgotten that already?   Didn't Mizzu lose to Indiana of the Big-10, and then turn around and BEAT South Carolina?  How is that even possible?




One hit wonders!

It's about the level of competition and how you perform over time.  Everyone is going to be up and down at times.

Again, there is the smartest kid at the diesel driving academy.  He might graduate and do good in an engineering class at an SEC school.  However, he's not going to graduate with top honors when he is only competing against the best of the best!

Do yourself a favor and watch Top Gun over the weekend.  All the guys flying the airplanes are Naval aviators - a very impressive accomplishment.  However, only a select few are invited to Top Gun.   SEC = Top Gun.  The best of the best, as a group.

Now yes, there will be times that someone from Top Gun is defeated by a lesser opponent.  It happens.  That is what keeps the universe in balance.  However, the Top Gun is still he best of the best.  They prove it time and again.

As I stated earlier, if a Pac 12 team played an SEC schedule, they would 1) get better or 2) have a losing record against SEC schools.  Mizzou and TAMU have gotten better.  Why do you think they wanted to join the SEC?  They realized to get better, you had to routinely play the best!  They have gotten better.  Do they still stumble?  Sure.  All will at sometimes.

I guess you believe that the ULM program is superior to Bama because in their last meeting, ULM came to Tuscaloosa and beat Bama.  They proved it on the field!  Right????  I believe the game is rescheduled for 2015.  I'll give you ULM and 3.  How much faith do you have in your 1 game theory of proving dominance and stature?


----------



## formula1 (Oct 3, 2014)

*Re:*

No clear leader at this point.  But I think the 4 team playoff will get the PAC-12 a chance to prove it, that is, if someone comes out of the PAC-12 with no more than 1 loss.  I also think there may be 2 SEC teams with only one loss. What will the committee do then?


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Making it to the Championship game is a heck of a lot better then they did in the Big-12, or have you guys forgotten that already?   Didn't Mizzu lose to Indiana of the Big-10, and then turn around and BEAT South Carolina?  How is that even possible?



How does an un-ranked Arizona team squeak by UTsa by 3 points and then beat the #2 ranked Oregon team?


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> How does an un-ranked Arizona team squeak by UTsa by 3 points and then beat the #2 ranked Oregon team?


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

formula1 said:


> No clear leader at this point.




You got that right!  But it's what makes it fun. The SEC West is a free-for-all right now.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> You got that right!  But it's what makes it fun. The SEC West is a free-for-all right now.



and the East is a too expensive-for-anybody.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> How does an un-ranked Arizona team squeak by UTsa by 3 points and then beat the #2 ranked Oregon team?



How does Auburn barely squeek by WSU and then win the SEC?


----------



## Throwback (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> How does Auburn barely squeek by WSU and then win the SEC?



Are you stomping your feet with clenched fists ?because it sounds like it


T


----------



## Matthew6 (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


>



The same way an unranked Boston College team beats the amazing men of troy and then BC rolls over for Colorado State.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> How does Auburn barely squeek by WSU and then win the SEC?



Luck


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> I think it shows that the PAC-12 is an incredibly tough conference to play in, and that's why it's so rare for a team to go undefeated.  Happens EVERY year.  Oregon is a very good football team.  But they haven't even won the PAC-12 the last two years.
> 
> But of course, if this was the SEC, you guys would be ranting and raving how tough the SEC is.  When it happens in other conferences, it shows the conferences weekness!  Hypocritical to say the least.



I agree JJ. Nobody should expect to win out against teams like Arizona. That's just crazy talk.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> One hit wonders!
> 
> It's about the level of competition and how you perform over time.  Everyone is going to be up and down at times.
> 
> ...



So, you can't concieve of a scenario where the best team in the nation isn't in the SEC ever?  Why does anyone else even bother playing football?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> So, you can't concieve of a scenario where the best team in the nation isn't in the SEC ever?  Why does anyone else even bother playing football?



I don't think that is what they were saying.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I don't think that is what they were saying.



That's what it sounds alot like.  Honestly, the team that has looked the best so far this season is Oklahoma.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> but the polls are more forgiving for overranked teams and programs.



That's how the middle of the SEc always appears better than they really are.

Mizzou, anyone?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> That's what it sounds alot like.  Honestly, the team that has looked the best so far this season is Oklahoma.



Yep Oklahoma is case in point of a team that competes at the highest level most years. But as conferences go the SEC dominates college football.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Yep Oklahoma is case in point of a team that competes at the highest level most years. But as conferences go the SEC dominates college football.



The SEC is the best conference, but not as dominant as ESPN would like you to believe.

Bama, LSU, and UGA.  That is the programs who are consistently top programs.  The second tier teams are good, not great, but are consistently overrated.  The bottom teams are treated like the only reason they suck is because they are in the SEC.


----------



## Boudreaux (Oct 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> So, you can't concieve of a scenario where the best team in the nation isn't in the SEC ever?  Why does anyone else even bother playing football?




I can absolutely conceive it.  Where do I say that the best team in the nation must come from the SEC?  As stated earlier, even the Vapors had a hit in the 80s.

I'm saying that 95% of the SEC games are slugfests.  The scoreboard might not show it, but it's felt in the trenches. 

The best team may not be in the SEC, but week in and week out, the SEC teams face the toughest competition among themselves.  If other schools played in the SEC, they would not be so pristine.  Once you start the conference schedule, there really are no "off" games.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> The SEC is the best conference, but not as dominant as ESPN would like you to believe.
> 
> Bama, LSU, and UGA.  That is the programs who are consistently top programs.  The second tier teams are good, not great, but are consistently overrated.  The bottom teams are treated like the only reason they suck is because they are in the SEC.



It's not just ESPN. Look at rankings from year to year, national championships, or recruiting. Doesn't mean there aren't teams out there like Oklahoma but take OU out of the Big 12 and what is left? Name any other division in college football that comes close to the SEC West in terms of the number of quality teams. They are stacked.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 3, 2014)

Boudreaux said:


> I can absolutely conceive it.  Where do I say that the best team in the nation must come from the SEC?  As stated earlier, even the Vapors had a hit in the 80s.
> 
> I'm saying that 95% of the SEC games are slugfests.  The scoreboard might not show it, but it's felt in the trenches.
> 
> The best team may not be in the SEC, but week in and week out, the SEC teams face the toughest competition among themselves.  If other schools played in the SEC, they would not be so pristine.  Once you start the conference schedule, there really are no "off" games.



That ship has sailed!  They put Mizzu and A&M in the SEC and they have had absolutely no problem competing.  They have actually done better in the SEC then they did in the Big-12.  They have proven that argument that SEC fans dwell on totally false.  The SEC grind is no tougher than any other conference.  With their 8 game schedule, it could easily be argued it's an easier grind , and that's why Mizzu and A&M are doing better in the SEC then they did in the Big-12.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 3, 2014)

2 "top 10" Pac 12 teams have lost to unranked schools this year.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Oct 3, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> It's not just ESPN. Look at rankings from year to year, national championships, or recruiting. Doesn't mean there aren't teams out there like Oklahoma but take OU out of the Big 12 and what is left? Name any other division in college football that comes close to the SEC West in terms of the number of quality teams. They are stacked.



I hate to agree with JJ, but aTm and Mizzou have proven that teams can come in and compete in the SEC.  The built in excuse of"if they played in the SEC" to degrade accomplishments of other elite teams is dead.

Elite teams are elite teams.  Every elite team plays about 3 games that they could lose without giving it away.  That's nation wide.  If your team  has more than 4, then they aren't elite.

As far as the rankings, middle of the pack SEC teams are always ranked too high to begin the season.  Then when they play each other the loser never drops as far as they should and with another win or two, they are right back up the rankings.  South Carolina gets this treatment every year along with at least one of the Miss schools.  Mizzou is back in the top 25 for beating USCe, after losing to Indiana.  If Mizzou was still in the BIG12 with the same record vs. the same teams, do you really think they would be in the top 25?


----------



## Throwback (Oct 3, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I agree JJ. Nobody should expect to win out against teams like Arizona. That's just crazy talk.



Snort. Lol

T


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> That ship has sailed!  They put Mizzu and A&M in the SEC and they have had absolutely no problem competing.  They have actually done better in the SEC then they did in the Big-12.  They have proven that argument that SEC fans dwell on totally false.  The SEC grind is no tougher than any other conference.  With their 8 game schedule, it could easily be argued it's an easier grind , and that's why Mizzu and A&M are doing better in the SEC then they did in the Big-12.



I keep hearing the argument is now about the success that TAMU and Mizzou are now having that they didn't have in the Big 12.  You do realize that TAMU played for 2 big 12 titles since the split format and won the conference once.  Mizzou also played twice and came in in one of those years ranked #1 in the Nation before losing so it is way off base to say they did not have success prior to joining the SEC.  Now let's really look at what has been accomplished, Mizzou did win the East last year and had a nice season.  Since joining the SEC they are 9-7 in conference, hardly ripping through the league with 0 conference titles.  TAMU (with 2 seasons of Heisman Trophy QB) managed 0 division titles, 0 conference titles, and a 10-6 conference record.... look out!!!  

I think that both these schools are great additions to an already ridiculously rich football conference, but to try to make an argument that they "prove" the weakness of the SEC is laughable.

How about the 4 best teams in the Nation play at the end of the season and the best one wins.  If your team is left out, don't whine about ESPN, or a bias, or a computer, etc...  Try winning the games you need to win for a change.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 4, 2014)

Mizzu made it to the title game twice in 12 years.  They've done it once already in the SEC.  A&M was worse.  These were not high power Big-12 schools.  They were middle of the road schools who occasionally made a ripple in the Big-12, that's it!  A&M has done a heck I a lot more then make a ripple since being in the SEC , and Mizzu has another East title to lose.  Don't start trying to say these were top Big-12 teams who are doing OK in the SEC. 

As far as Oregon goes, that's just PAC-12 football.  It happens EVERY single year.  That's what happens with a 9 game conference schedule.


----------



## SpotandStalk (Oct 4, 2014)

JJ makes a valid argument. Heck listening to a lot of SEC guys before the addition of A&M and Mizzou you would have thought that they would only win one maybe two conference games per year. 

They've definitely done better than I or most anyone else expected.


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Mizzu made it to the title game twice in 12 years.  They've done it once already in the SEC.  A&M was worse.  These were not high power Big-12 schools.  They were middle of the road schools who occasionally made a ripple in the Big-12, that's it!  A&M has done a heck I a lot more then make a ripple since being in the SEC , and Mizzu has another East title to lose.  Don't start trying to say these were top Big-12 teams who are doing OK in the SEC.
> 
> As far as Oregon goes, that's just PAC-12 football.  It happens EVERY single year.  That's what happens with a 9 game conference schedule.



Never said they were powers, said they were good teams that occasionally had good years, as has been the case now.  Until Tamu wins the west, they are middle of the road, just like ole miss, miss st, and arky.

  If you would like a sample of the sec conference and if it is indeed without a doubt the toughest road, I ask you simply look at the coaches poll this morning (not the espn biased ap poll that you dislike) but a poll from the football coaches, just take a glimpse and make an educated decision on the difficulty of navigating the sec schedule vs others.  If you still feel it is less difficult than others, there is not much more to say.


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 4, 2014)

SpotandStalk said:


> JJ makes a valid argument. Heck listening to a lot of SEC guys before the addition of A&M and Mizzou you would have thought that they would only win one maybe two conference games per year.
> 
> They've definitely done better than I or most anyone else expected.



Not going to keep beating this horse but missouri did only win 2 games in 2012.  Had a nice year last year.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Missouri has had 1 good season.  In year 1, they were 2~6 in conference.  Last year, they were 7~1 and beat Oklahoma State in their bowl game.  Oklahoma State finished 10~3 (7~2 in conference) in the big 12.  

The top 3 big 12 teams in 2013 were:
Baylor (8~1 in conference), who's only loss was to Oklahoma State
Oklahoma (7~2 in conference), who's 2 losses were to Baylor and Texas
Oklahoma State (7~2 in conference), who defeated #3 Baylor in November and was ranked 13 before the bowl loss to Missouri


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 4, 2014)

SpotandStalk said:


> JJ makes a valid argument. Heck listening to a lot of SEC guys before the addition of A&M and Mizzou you would have thought that they would only win one maybe two conference games per year.
> 
> They've definitely done better than I or most anyone else expected.



I can't speak to Mizzu because I don't know that program but in the case of A&M JJ is RONG!!! For his point to be valid we would have to be talking about a program and team that is relatively the same before and after joining the SEC. It's not even close to the same. Had the 2010 A&M team played in the SEC the results would have been very different than they were in 2012 when they had Manziel. Everyone knows Manziel was key for the first two years in the SEC. Factors such as Manziel, Kevin Sumlin, and playing in the top conference boosted their recruiting and is leading to more success. It just isn't the same program so you can't act as if a mediocre Big 12 team is able to compete in the SEC west. They got better. A lot better. Had they stayed in the Big 12 Manziel would have led them to a conference championship. They would have beat OU which we know because they did beat them in 2012 and odds are they would have beat any other team in the Big 12 that year.

If JJ's point is that a Big 12 team like OU could compete in the SEC yes that is true. But how many conferences are stacked with teams at that level?


----------



## Matthew6 (Oct 4, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> The SEC is the best conference, but not as dominant as ESPN would like you to believe.
> 
> Bama, LSU, and UGA.  That is the programs who are consistently top programs.  The second tier teams are good, not great, but are consistently overrated.  The bottom teams are treated like the only reason they suck is because they are in the SEC.



24 loses in the past 5 and 1/4 seasons does not qualify the dogs as a consistently top program: unless it is good to be consistently beaten.


----------



## toolmkr20 (Oct 4, 2014)

Lets not forget about UGA being down several key players last year when they played Mizzu as well as Tenn being in a slump along with Fl. Were those 3 at their normal level of play Mizzu wouldn't have sniffed the SECCG, just saying.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Matthew6 said:


> 24 loses in the past 5 and 1/4 seasons does not qualify the dogs as a consistently top program: unless it is good to be consistently beaten.



8 (10) win seasons in the last 13 certainly qualifies as a top program...which is the same as Bama (if you don't take away the vacated 10~2 season).


----------



## Matthew6 (Oct 4, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> 8 (10) win seasons in the last 13 certainly qualifies as a top program...which is the same as Bama (if you don't take away the vacated 10~2 season).


rex, you forgot to mention the 3 BCS titles bama has and the 0 that Uga has. 

I went back five years Rex. I think that argument is more relevant and compelling. More up to date. More what have you done for me lately.i just don't see the point in dog fans coming on here and posting all this "we are a top program". Where's the proof.bama has 6 loses in the past 5 1/4 seasons and the 3 national titles. UGA has 18 more loses (24) in the same time span, and no titles. Bama might loose today. But I believe 11-2 is a worse case scenario for this season. That is a top tier program.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Matthew6 said:


> rex, you forgot to mention the 3 BCS titles bama has and the 0 that Uga has.
> 
> I went back five years Rex. I think that argument is more relevant and compelling. More up to date. More what have you done for me lately.i just don't see the point in dog fans coming on here and posting all this "we are a top program". Where's the proof.bama has 6 loses in the past 5 1/4 seasons and the 3 national titles. UGA has 18 more loses (24) in the same time span, and no titles. Bama might loose today. But I believe 11-2 is a worse case scenario for this season. That is a top tier program.



10 seasons is relevant.  You loost your ability to properly type lose, loose etc.  

Top 10 in the BCS era is top tier.


----------



## Matthew6 (Oct 4, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> 10 seasons is relevant.  You loost your ability to properly type lose, loose etc.
> 
> Top 10 in the BCS era is top tier.



I phones suck. , and so do the dogs.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Matthew6 said:


> I phones suck. , and so do the dogs.



Good luck to the fighting Updykes.  Ole Miss is getting a big head.


----------



## Matthew6 (Oct 4, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Good luck to the fighting Updykes.  Ole Miss is getting a big head.



I like to think Bama wins this one. Just hope Sims can hold it in the road in a hostile environment.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Matthew6 said:


> I like to think Bama wins this one. Just hope Sims can hold it in the road in a hostile environment.



I think y'all win too.  Y'all are more balanced.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 4, 2014)

When did A&M suddenly become a good Big-12 team?  Nobody in the Big-12 ever considered them a top team, let alone a good team.  It's only been since they have played in the SEC, that SEC fans suddenly considered them a good Big-12 team.


----------



## SpotandStalk (Oct 4, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I can't speak to Mizzu because I don't know that program but in the case of A&M JJ is RONG!!! For his point to be valid we would have to be talking about a program and team that is relatively the same before and after joining the SEC. It's not even close to the same. Had the 2010 A&M team played in the SEC the results would have been very different than they were in 2012 when they had Manziel. Everyone knows Manziel was key for the first two years in the SEC. Factors such as Manziel, Kevin Sumlin, and playing in the top conference boosted their recruiting and is leading to more success. It just isn't the same program so you can't act as if a mediocre Big 12 team is able to compete in the SEC west. They got better. A lot better. Had they stayed in the Big 12 Manziel would have led them to a conference championship. They would have beat OU which we know because they did beat them in 2012 and odds are they would have beat any other team in the Big 12 that year.
> 
> If JJ's point is that a Big 12 team like OU could compete in the SEC yes that is true. But how many conferences are stacked with teams at that level?


----------



## greene_dawg (Oct 4, 2014)

Same ole Oregon.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> When did A&M suddenly become a good Big-12 team?  Nobody in the Big-12 ever considered them a top team, let alone a good team.  It's only been since they have played in the SEC, that SEC fans suddenly considered them a good Big-12 team.



One great qb and the move to the SEC (huge for recruiting) and you have the perfect storm.  Didn't they smoke Oklahoma in 2012? 

Coach is pretty solid too.


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 4, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> Same ole Oregon.



You can't expect them to get through the 2 game PAC 12 gauntlet of wash st on the road and Arizona at home!  What team in America could get through that?


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> When did A&M suddenly become a good Big-12 team?  Nobody in the Big-12 ever considered them a top team, let alone a good team.  It's only been since they have played in the SEC, that SEC fans suddenly considered them a good Big-12 team.



Bama wasn't considered a top team prior to Saban, LSU wasn't considered a top team prior to Saban, just as USC wasn't considered a top team before Carroll and Stanford was nothing prior to Harbaugh.  A coach can make a HUGE difference, quickly too.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 4, 2014)

Same old Bama?  Does this mean Bama is overrated?  I mean, it is Ole Miss.


----------



## ClemsonRangers (Oct 4, 2014)

looks like FSU may well be the best team, maybe


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 4, 2014)

So with USC losing to Georgia tech in a bowl and this year to bc and stanford losing to Notre dame, I guess the PAC 12 is now a joke compared to the Acc according to some people's logic?  Good thing the polls don't measure that way.  In my book the PAC 12 would barely finish 500 in the Acc.....


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 4, 2014)

The polls are a joke!  Now, back to my question, is this the same ole Bama?


----------



## rhbama3 (Oct 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> The polls are a joke!  Now, back to my question, is this the same ole Bama?



Which previous version of Bama are you comparing it to?


----------



## hayseed_theology (Oct 4, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I agree JJ. Nobody should expect to win out against teams like Arizona. That's just crazy talk.



I'm still laughing about this one.


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> The polls are a joke!  Now, back to my question, is this the same ole Bama?



Same question about Oregon?  Wash st and Arizona at home?


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 5, 2014)

Welcome to the PAC-12.  Remember when USC was running through SEC teams?  They still lost conference games to UCLA, and Oregon St had their number for several years. That melts them out of the NC two different times.  Remember just a few years ago when UW ruined Stanford's shot at the NC game?  When almost every team has a high powered offense with dual threat QB's, it happens almost every weekend.  The SEC is just starting to see what it's like.  Have you guys already forgot that Auburn couldn't stop WSU's passing game last year?   If it weren't for a special teams TD, and WSU hurting themselves with turnovers they would have beat WSU.


----------



## fish hawk (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Welcome to the PAC-12.  Remember when USC was running through SEC teams?  They still lost conference games to UCLA, and Oregon St had their number for several years. That melts them out of the NC two different times.  Remember just a few years ago when UW ruined Stanford's shot at the NC game?  When almost every team has a high powered offense with dual threat QB's, it happens almost every weekend.  The SEC is just starting to see what it's like.  Have you guys already forgot that Auburn couldn't stop WSU's passing game last year?   If it weren't for a special teams TD, and WSU hurting themselves with turnovers they would have beat WSU.



Nobody around here really cares about the Pac-12!!!
It sux and will be a long time before it even smells another championship.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Welcome to the PAC-12.  Remember when USC was running through SEC teams?  They still lost conference games to UCLA, and Oregon St had their number for several years. That melts them out of the NC two different times.  Remember just a few years ago when UW ruined Stanford's shot at the NC game?  When almost every team has a high powered offense with dual threat QB's, it happens almost every weekend.  The SEC is just starting to see what it's like.  Have you guys already forgot that Auburn couldn't stop WSU's passing game last year?   If it weren't for a special teams TD, and WSU hurting themselves with turnovers they would have beat WSU.



Is Boston College a Pac 12 team?


----------



## Throwback (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Welcome to the PAC-12.  Remember when USC was running through SEC teams?  They still lost conference games to UCLA, and Oregon St had their number for several years. That melts them out of the NC two different times.  Remember just a few years ago when UW ruined Stanford's shot at the NC game?  When almost every team has a high powered offense with dual threat QB's, it happens almost every weekend.  The SEC is just starting to see what it's like.  Have you guys already forgot that Auburn couldn't stop WSU's passing game last year?   If it weren't for a special teams TD, and WSU hurting themselves with turnovers they would have beat WSU.





I don't know if you realize this or not but when your team has less points at the end of the fourth quarter they just lost the game to the other team. That's the rules in most conferences but apparently in the PAC12 it's different


You think the PAC 12 is the only conference with good offenses and dual threat qb's?  


Lol



T


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 5, 2014)

Throwback said:


> I don't know if you realize this or not but when your team has less points at the end of the fourth quarter they just lost the game to the other team. That's the rules in most conferences but apparently in the PAC12 it's different
> 
> 
> You think the PAC 12 is the only conference with good offenses and dual threat qb's?
> ...



Nope.  But they have had them in the PAC-12 and Big-12 for a long time.  The SEC is just starting to join the club.  Remember when you guys bragged about the vaunted SEC D's while bashing the Big-12 and PAC-12 for not playing D?  What happened?  Why don't we hear about those tough SEC D's anymore?  It's because Tebow, Newton, and Manziel destroyed that myth.  Now, even the SEC teams are jumping on the dual threat QB wide open offense bandwagon.   The problem is, now your starting to learn what Big-12 and PAC-12 teams have known for years.  It's nearly impossible to defend against them week in and week out. It's a Defensive coordinators nightmare, and leads to a lot of close games and crazy upsets.  Of course to you guys, when Auburn barely beats WSU it's becuse it was a tough game against a good offense.  When Oregon does the same thing, it's because Oregon sucks!


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Nope.  But they have had them in the PAC-12 and Big-12 for a long time.  The SEC is just starting to join the club.  Remember when you guys bragged about the vaunted SEC D's while bashing the Big-12 and PAC-12 for not playing D?  What happened?  Why don't we hear about those tough SEC D's anymore?  It's because Tebow, Newton, and Manziel destroyed that myth.  Now, even the SEC teams are jumping on the dual threat QB wide open offense bandwagon.   The problem is, now your starting to learn what Big-12 and PAC-12 teams have known for years.  It's nearly impossible to defend against them week in and week out. It's a Defensive coordinators nightmare, and leads to a lot of close games and crazy upsets.  Of course to you guys, when Auburn barely beats WSU it's becuse it was a tough game against a good offense.  When Oregon does the same thing, it's because Oregon sucks!



Agreed... Oregon sucks   glad to see you finally get it


----------



## skeeter24 (Oct 5, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> The SEC is the best conference, but not as dominant as ESPN would like you to believe.
> 
> Bama, LSU, and UGA.  That is the programs who are consistently top programs.  The second tier teams are good, not great, but are consistently overrated.  The bottom teams are treated like the only reason they suck is because they are in the SEC.



Not going to include AU in this list?  They have won more SEC titles in the last 10 years than any other school.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Welcome to the PAC-12.  Remember when USC was running through SEC teams?  They still lost conference games to UCLA, and Oregon St had their number for several years. That melts them out of the NC two different times.  Remember just a few years ago when UW ruined Stanford's shot at the NC game?  When almost every team has a high powered offense with dual threat QB's, it happens almost every weekend.  The SEC is just starting to see what it's like.  Have you guys already forgot that Auburn couldn't stop WSU's passing game last year?   If it weren't for a special teams TD, and WSU hurting themselves with turnovers they would have beat WSU.



Stanford hasn't seemed to have a problem with containing Pac 12 offenses.

BC isn't a high powered offense and they shredded USC, who I believe you said had the best DC in the country.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 5, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Stanford hasn't seemed to have a problem with containing Pac 12 offenses.
> 
> BC isn't a high powered offense and they shredded USC, who I believe you said had the best DC in the country.



Yes they have.  Stanford loses a game or two in the PAC-12 every year.  Did you forget they lost two games last year, 1 of them to unranked Utah, the other to unranked USC.  They also lost to unranked UW several years ago.  There is not a single team in the PAC-12 that is immune.  Even USC during their glory days lost to an unranked PAC-12 team almost every year.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Yes they have.  Stanford loses a game or two in the PAC-12 every year.  Did you forget they lost two games last year, 1 of them to unranked Utah, the other to unranked USC.  They also lost to unranked UW several years ago.  There is not a single team in the PAC-12 that is immune.  Even USC during their glory days lost to an unranked PAC-12 team almost every year.



I guess those Pac 12 teams really are just average.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 5, 2014)

And Utah was 5~7 last year.  They whipped Utah State by 4...points, not touchdowns.


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 5, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> I guess those Pac 12 teams really are just average.



Any given weekend.  Especially with high power offenses and a 9 game conference schedule.  Case in point, Auburn struggling to beat WSU last year, and struggling to beat Kansas St this year.


----------



## rex upshaw (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Any given weekend.  Especially with high power offenses and a 9 game conference schedule.  Case in point, Auburn struggling to beat WSU last year, and struggling to beat Kansas St this year.



USC had only played 1 conference game before BC rushed for 450+ against the DC you claim is the best in the country.  

Did you mean that any given weekend, any Pac 12 team could lose to an average, or unranked opponent?


----------



## Jetjockey (Oct 5, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> USC had only played 1 conference game before BC rushed for 450+ against the DC you claim is the best in the country.
> 
> Did you mean that any given weekend, any Pac 12 team could lose to an average, or unranked opponent?



No, I said he is one of the he best.  USC laid an egg.  But at least they didnt lose to a Big-10 school!


----------



## flowingwell (Oct 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Any given weekend.  Especially with high power offenses and a 9 game conference schedule.  Case in point, Auburn struggling to beat WSU last year, and struggling to beat Kansas St this year.



I hope we struggle to win any game, any week.  Sure beats losing and being irrelevant at the end.


----------

