mandel conference rankings

[westgatehusker]

in stewart mandels latest article in which he rates the 11 conferences he puts the Big 12, 5!!!! behind SEC, Pac 10, Big 10, and Big East

 

 

1) SEC: Simply put, this year's SEC could be the toughest conference in history. I'm not exaggerating. It's extremely rare for a league to not only boast so many quality teams at the top (LSU, Florida, Auburn, Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee) but also so little dead weight at the bottom. Really, it's just Mississippi State. You've got two former national championship coaches, Steve Spurrier and Nick Saban, leading what may be only the seventh- or eighth-best teams in the league. Kentucky won eight games last year. And Vandy is no longer a gimme (just ask Georgia). It's a perfect storm for the SEC right now with so many accomplished coaches, so much elite talent and so many returning veterans all at once.

 

2) Pac-10: I've always felt one reason the Pac-10 doesn't get taken seriously by most of the country is that outside of USC, no one has been able to stay consistently good recently. At the same time, however, no one has been consistently bad, either. In other words, the league's image is a victim of its own balance. USC appears to be the cream of the crop again this year, but remember, the Trojans lost to two Pac-10 teams last year, UCLA and Oregon State, both of which return the vast majority of their starters. Cal is loaded on offense yet again. And I expect Oregon, Arizona State (which now has Dennis Erickson), Arizona and possibly Washington to all be factors as well.

 

3) Big Ten: Remember the 1990s and early 2000s? For the only time in its history, the Big Ten was actually fairly wide open, with everyone from Northwestern to Purdue to Illinois winning titles. Now, the league has gone back to being top-heavy. Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio State could all be top-10 teams, Penn State won't be far off, but then there's a pretty drastic drop-off. I do expect Iowa to do a bit of damage, but nearly half the teams the league (Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois and Indiana) are basically irrelevant.

 

4) Big East: Obviously, it's impossible for the Big East to go as deep as the other leagues because it has so few teams, and thus its ranking suffers. The top four teams -- Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers and USF -- stack up with any league outside of the SEC. All four are legitimate preseason top-25 teams in my mind, and three of them could be BCS-caliber. The Cardinals and Mountaineers have already shown their offenses are as explosive as any in the country, but I have a hunch Rutgers might wind up winning the title because it has a defense to go with its potential All-America running back.

 

5) Big 12: Earlier this decade, I really thought the Big 12 was going to emerge as the best conference in the country. But due in large part to Dennis Franchione's thus-far disappointing tenure at Texas A&M, the South Division has remained largely a two-team show (though Texas Tech is a consistent second-tier bowl team), and the North has yet to fully recover from its all-out implosion a few years ago. Nebraska should be a top-20 team, but I'm not convinced the Huskers are ready to contend nationally yet, Missouri should again be good but not great and the jury's still out on the likes of Kansas State and Kansas.

 

6) ACC: The conference will be better than it was last year due to several high-profile coaching changes and more experienced teams, but it is still probably a year away from becoming a true force nationally. Virginia Tech should be a top-10 team, but after that it's anyone's best guess who will emerge as legitimate top-20 teams and who will remain mired in mediocrity out of a pack that includes Wake Forest, Clemson, Boston College, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech and Maryland.

 

he also mentions later on that he is most looking forward to the USC Nebraska game in the non conference season.

 

 

 

the last couple The last couple of seasons, we have seen an influx in big non-conference games to start the season. Which game are you most eager to see. For me, it's Virginia Tech at LSU on Sept. 8!

--Joshua, Richmond, Va.

 

That's going to be a good one, all right. I don't know who's going to win, but I bet the final score will be something like 10-9. I also think it's going to be an extremely important moment for the Virginia Tech community in its ongoing healing process. Assuming that's the "game of the week" nationally (Notre Dame-Penn State will get plenty of attention as well, but those teams aren't going to be ranked in the Top 10), I can only imagine how uplifting it will be for Hokies fans to see their school return to the national spotlight for something besides the recent tragedy.

 

The non-conference game I'm looking forward to most, however, is USC at Nebraska the following weekend. The Trojans are the expected preseason No. 1 team, but they're not without questions, particularly on offense. This will be just their second game of the season, and the first one is against Idaho, so this will truly be the first chance to gauge the 2007 Trojans. I also think this game will serve as a referendum on Bill Callahan's mostly stormy tenure in Lincoln. I thought Huskers fans got a little bit ahead of themselves last year in thinking their team would give USC any sort of scare in L.A. in what was then the start of Callahan's third season. At this point, however, it's year four, he's got his recruits and he's finally got a stud quarterback in Sam Keller. It's reasonable to expect that Nebraska -- one of the most storied programs of all-time -- should not roll over for anyone, even the No. 1 team in the country.

[cmb23]

Sorry. We have to face it. (I know all of the faithful...or shall I say totally biased, NU/Big XII supporters will argue). Aside from Texas or maybe OU over the past few years. The Big XII has been sub-par (at best) compared to the other conferences, in particular the North. Hopefully things are tracking in the right direction with us as well as other programs (A&M, OSU, Missou....)

[kc_husker]

What place did Auburn finish in the SEC

What place did NU finish in the Big 12

We lost by 3 to Auburn

 

Doesn't look to bad to me

[westgatehusker]

my biggest problem was us big 12 behind the BIG EAST???? that is ridiculous. aside from that the big 11 is and always will be overated thank goodness he didn't put them ahead of the pac 10

[BigRedCornhead]

i would have to agree with some of the earlier post the Big12 has lost some of its potency...Texas has shown some wear, OU looks beatable all the time, OSU looked tougher to me last year than OU, CU is lost for a bit, Ku is coming back, ISU seems to downhill maybe, KSU and Mizzou all ways contenders but just seems we lost a little something. NU of old would have just mopped up this schools a few years back, i am talking like 70 point scoring games. I think our conference as a whole missed a step and were picking up slack. IMO

[cmb23]

my biggest problem was us big 12 behind the BIG EAST???? that is ridiculous. aside from that the big 11 is and always will be overated thank goodness he didn't put them ahead of the pac 10

 

I'll agree with his statement that the Big 10 has gone back to a top-heavy conference. Unfortunately they have 3-4 (really-to-pretty good) teams while Big XII only has a couple at best. Have our 4 best teams against their 4 best teams play round robin, and I bet they win every 2 of 3. It's just a more solid defensive/run-based conference.....remember those days???

[OKCHusker]

I dont understand the Pac-10 being #2???? Other than USC...what have the other teams done?? UCLA hasnt been that great. Yeah, they beat USC, which is ONE game...AND its there biggest game of the year. Cal has been decent over the past few years...Oregon = decent. I get tired of reading these reviews...they are usually wrong

[JGS30]

You can't blame KU for the Big 12's downfall. KU has done nothing but improve since the crappy squad that Terry Allen built. Here is KU's records since that 2002 2-10 season:

 

2003- 6-6

2004- 4-7

2005- 7-5

2006 - 6-6

 

They've basically stayed about the same. The 4-7 campaign had the likes of Texas, OU and Texas Tech on the schedule. They were also on the schedule in 2005. I would say KU has helped the conference since 02, rather than hurt them.

 

I think if KU can go 7-5 or 8-4 this season, they will of held up there end of the deal. It's the Iowa States, Baylors, and Kansas States that are about to take a turn for the worst! And CU may win 4 this year, but that's about it. Oh and..... Sweet schedule KSU! Can you say 1-4 start? Nothing like opening up against Auburn! LOL. Bold Prediction: San Jose State will beat KSU in week two!!

[MadcatNU]

The top four teams -- Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers and USF -- stack up with any league outside of the SEC.

 

....

 

If we were in the BE in place of any one of these teams, this statement would read exactly the same way with us in place of the swapped out team. Does anyone doubt this? I tend to believe Mizzou would as well. But since were in the Big 12 north, we're only "a top 20" instead of a "BCS level team".

 

I don't understand why the Pac10 and Big10 get so much love either. What have the other teams done outside of USC? Who did Wisky play last year? Who did MU play?

 

I'll give it to the SEC as being the most difficult, but after that it's wide open imo. I can't understand anyone putting the BE ahead of us... or any conference besides the ACC for that matter.

[junior4949]

What has Mizzou ever done to make any of you think they've ever been good? Gary Stinkel will always have a jeckyl and hyde team. They'll knock off an oponent or two they shouldn't beat and then turn around and get completely throttled by a horrible team. The reason the Big 12 gets no respect is the fact that it's a two team show. It used to be that the North actually fielded a team. You can't tell me that 07 NU or Mizzou could hold the 2002 KState team's or the mid to late 90's NU team's jockstrap. We used to have key games in the Big 12 where whoever won the game would probably play for the NC. Other than the Red River Shootout, we don't really have that anymore. Until the Big 12 shows it on the field, we won't get much respect.

[huskerjack23]

The Pac-10 is second because of USC. The fact that almost everyone is gonna have them preseason number one, that it has decent teams(that USC WILL destroy) gives them that kind of status. The SEC has four top 10 teams and five top 15. There's nothing much you can argue about those predictions.

 

The national title game isn't set in stone from spring ball like it was in '05, but it very well could.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

If the Big XII North could return schools like us and Colorado, Kansas State to national type power houses then we would start getting some respect. Until there is more than one great team in the Big XII North the Big XII as a whole will get no respect.

[UGAHusker]

If the Big XII North could return schools like us and Colorado, Kansas State to national type power houses

 

This quote pretty much epitomizes the term oxymoron.

 

The team Sports Illustrated dubbed "Futility U." Five winning seasons in 54 years. From '84 to '88, they went a combined 4-40-1

 

Kansas State is not a power house.

 

Tom

[TarheelTrojan]

The Pac-10 is second because of USC. The fact that almost everyone is gonna have them preseason number one, that it has decent teams(that USC WILL destroy) gives them that kind of status. The SEC has four top 10 teams and five top 15. There's nothing much you can argue about those predictions.

 

The national title game isn't set in stone from spring ball like it was in '05, but it very well could.

 

Regarding the quote, ""the Pac-10 is second because of USC", I would like to point out that the PAC 10 (not USC) went 3-0 against the Big 12 last year. Besides our win against you guys, Cal destroyed A&M, and, in the forth quarter, Oregon State exploded on Missouri in their final game. The PAC 10 is not a one team conference.

 

Thats like saying the PAC 10 was a one team conference in basketball in the 1970's because of John Wooten's 10 national championships. The reason the NCAA basketball regionals are the way they are today is because "good PAC-10 teams" couldn't get past UCLA because the regions were then purely based on geography. Because of UCLA's dominance, not because the rest of the conference was weak, the NCAA changed the basketball regions and seedings.

 

Good PAC-10 football teams can't get by USC, not because they are poor teams, but they have to play USC every year.

 

Think about it, except for Pete Carroll's first 12 games(including two losses to K-State), and the loss to Texas in 2005, the only teams to beat USC has been PAC 10 teams. Auburn couldn't do it at home, Arkansas couldn't do it at home, Va Tech couldn't do it at home (well almost home). You guys get a chance to do it in September. But until someone outside the conference beats USC, lets not say those teams in the PAC 10 are weak. Because it saying that, you are saying you are weak also to based on that analogy.

 

Yours is a specious argument.

 

Regards, TarheelTrojan

[westgatehusker]

The Pac-10 is second because of USC. The fact that almost everyone is gonna have them preseason number one, that it has decent teams(that USC WILL destroy) gives them that kind of status. The SEC has four top 10 teams and five top 15. There's nothing much you can argue about those predictions.

 

The national title game isn't set in stone from spring ball like it was in '05, but it very well could.

 

Regarding the quote, ""the Pac-10 is second because of USC", I would like to point out that the PAC 10 (not USC) went 3-0 against the Big 12 last year. Besides our win against you guys, Cal destroyed A&M, and, in the forth quarter, Oregon State exploded on Missouri in their final game. The PAC 10 is not a one team conference.

 

Thats like saying the PAC 10 was a one team conference in basketball in the 1970's because of John Wooten's 10 national championships. The reason the NCAA basketball regionals are the way they are today is because "good PAC-10 teams" couldn't get past UCLA because the regions were then purely based on geography. Because of UCLA's dominance, not because the rest of the conference was weak, the NCAA changed the basketball regions and seedings.

 

Good PAC-10 football teams can't get by USC, not because they are poor teams, but they have to play USC every year.

 

Think about it, except for Pete Carroll's first 12 games(including two losses to K-State), and the loss to Texas in 2005, the only teams to beat USC has been PAC 10 teams. Auburn couldn't do it at home, Arkansas couldn't do it at home, Va Tech couldn't do it at home (well almost home). You guys get a chance to do it in September. But until someone outside the conference beats USC, lets not say those teams in the PAC 10 are weak. Because it saying that, you are saying you are weak also to based on that analogy.

 

Yours is a specious argument.

 

Regards, TarheelTrojan

I understand what your saying and I don't nessecarilly agree with husker jack but he might have been saying that because of USC they where number 2 in mandels rankings and the pac ten wouldn't have been that highly ranked of a conference with out the powerhouse that is USC.

 

fun to have you posting and great post