Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Nov 24, 2012.
There's depth at the top of the league. Duh.
Look up the same record for the other 4 big conferences and I'm guessing it would be pretty similar.
you do it, it's your point.
if you have 6 teams with 10 or more wins, the other teams have to lose alot - Arkansas and Ole Miss aren't bad teams, neither is Mizzou. Those 3 teams would be 6 - 6 in the Big 12, PAC 12, or Big 10.
If Tennessee is so great, why did they fire their coach?
I'm sure someone will be quick to point out how NC State's win over FSU or UW's wins over Stanford and Oregon State display the depth of those respective conferences.
You have 6 teams with 10 or more wins because they mostly avoided each other. How many different times does it has to be explained to you before you understand the argument?
Mizzou and Arkansas are not good teams. Ole Miss looks promising, but got murdered at home by an above average Texas team.
That wasn't your point. So we can assume you actually don't have one.
The ACC blows.
The PAC-12 is deep. Why is it so hard to admit?
Because they got used to winning 8, 9, or 10 games. They just spent a fortune on new football facilities. They don't sit on the pot, if they have to take a $#iT, they take a $#iT.
That's a crock!
But I'm sure that someone would be quick to point out how deep these other conferences are because of wins like these.
Look, every conference has their bad teams. Yes the SEC does, but so do other conferences like the Pac-12 and the Big 12.
It's pretty well accepted that the top three conferences are the SEC, Big 12, and PAC-12 (and by a good margin). Why would you disagree that the PAC-12 has depth?
The SEC West teams have to play each other, and the East does also, plus Florida plays LSU every year. Your'e makin no sense.
Yes the ACC blows, no argument there. But they have 2 very good teams and one of them just lost at home by double-digits to one of the SEC teams that was said to be over-rated.
The Pac has 2 atrocious teams, we all know that. One of those atrocious teams just beat UW. The Pac-12 has 2 very good teams and 5 mediocre-good teams. If that's what you want to call deep, then ok, it's deep.
UW is garbage - LSU absolutely crushed them 41-3 back in September. They crushed Oregon in 2011 in Dallas.
Yea, and that garbage UW team beat 2 of the Pac's better teams, Stanford and Oregon State.
Two teams with four conference wins between them just played LSU to the wire in back-to-back weeks. Let me guess... LSU is still an "elite" team?
I am honestly amazed that you are not even willing to give an inch in this argument.
Look at the schedules. It might hit you why everyone has been arguing how it is a joke the SEC plays an 8-game conference schedule with 14 teams... or maybe not. I'm guessing the latter.
OK, some of these SEC teams have struggled against inferior competition. That's a fact. And Florida also won at A&M and at FSU. The SEC has 6 very good teams. Maybe not all elite as in legit NC contender, but 6 very good teams nonetheless. I see 2 in the Pac-12.
I completely agree that the SEC needs to go to a 9-game conference schedule, especially now that they've expanded to 14 teams.
...and this is what I find so funny. Just how you frame it. Do you really think UCLA and Oregon State are just average teams? I know you do, but it confuses me quite a bit. Oh well.
What's funniest to me about this is that Duff is more of an SEC guy than a Pac-12 guy. If it weren't for CU, I don't think Duff would pay any more attention to the Pac-12 than he does the Mountain West.
I don't see ANY bad teams in the Pac-12. :nod:
Guilty as charged. I'd actually call them good or above-average teams, despite UCLA getting drubbed by mighty Cal.
I'm often confused on whose point you're making in these arguments.
Separate names with a comma.