sd'sker Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I've asked you several times - after USC and Oregon, name the elite teams in the Pac-10. I've named four for the Big Ten. Who you got out west? Michigan and Nebraska hasnt been "elite" in the past few years. Never knew 7-6 and 5-7 were elite. Nebraska is an elite team? What has Nebraska done lately? They've been good but not anywhere near elite. How has Wisconsin been elite when they havent won a big game outside of the B1G in the past four years? Penn State has had a few good years but also a few losing record seasons in the past few years, how is that elite? I totally understand that you don't think Nebraska and/or Michigan have been very good in the last few years - despite both having only two losing seasons in the past several decades. That still doesn't answer my question that, for no apparent reason, you're ignoring - who are the elite teams in the Pac-10? You can even bump that up to the Pac-12 and include their n00bs if you want. Name all the elite teams. Go. you seem to be disagreeing about the definition of 'elite', but even so. past or present, the pac 12 is weak. washington might field a good team this year and usc/oregon should be good, bu that is it. Elite status, imo, is a program thats had a pretty good run in the past 5 years or so. Pac 12 isnt that great but neither is the BIG 10. It seems like Husker fans are overhyping the B1G only because Nebraska is in the conference. Remember how everyone was saying how crappy the B1G was the year before Nebraska joined? Nebraska all of a sudden joined and we are acting like the B1G is a good conference when its average at best. Pac is a better conference but not by much. SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big 12>>>>>>Pac>B1G 10>>>>>>>>>ACC i agree. i was guilty of bashing B1G before we were invited. however, what i realized was that the B1G was pretty much what i thought, but i held the Big 12 too highly. i did not underestimate the B1G, i was just overestimating the Big 12. the big 12 is weak, it was a two and a half league (with rotating top teams, to a degree). the B1G is respectable and definitely better than the pac 12. usc may be better than any B1G team, but after that the B1G is better top to bottom. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 So average records mean they are "elite" They've had good records but nothing to put them in the "elite" category. Pac 12's elite: USC and Oregon BIG 10's elite-Ohio State. If you ask people around the country, who are the "elite" teams in college football currently, you really think they are going to say michigan and nebraska? I think more people are going to name more top teams from the Big Ten than from the Pac-12, if that's what you're asking. I also think we have very different definitions of "average." I've given Michigan's ten-year record already. Over the past ten years, Nebraska has gone 82-48. Both are better than Stanford. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does anyone mind if I split this Pac-10/Big Ten conversation away from the Rex thread? It's a good conversation, but it doesn't really belong here. Quote Link to comment
huskerfan333157 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 i agree. i was guilty of bashing B1G before we were invited. however, what i realized was that the B1G was pretty much what i thought, but i held the Big 12 too highly. i did not underestimate the B1G, i was just overestimating the Big 12. the big 12 is weak, it was a two and a half league (with rotating top teams, to a degree). the B1G is respectable and definitely better than the pac 12. usc may be better than any B1G team, but after that the B1G is better top to bottom. I think we are looking at the history a little too much. Michigan hasnt been that good, penn state has been very inconsistent, they've had some losing seasons in the past 6 years, Wisconsin is tough to tell because they havent beaten an OOC ranked opponent for 4 years, Nebraska's been good and average all in the same year, Ohio state has been elite, iowa is up and down. The past few years you've had Stanford and Oregon who has been consistently good. In the past four years, id definately take Pac over the B1G. Outside of Ohio State, name me a team thats won a big OOC game? Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 i agree. i was guilty of bashing B1G before we were invited. however, what i realized was that the B1G was pretty much what i thought, but i held the Big 12 too highly. i did not underestimate the B1G, i was just overestimating the Big 12. the big 12 is weak, it was a two and a half league (with rotating top teams, to a degree). the B1G is respectable and definitely better than the pac 12. usc may be better than any B1G team, but after that the B1G is better top to bottom. I think we are looking at the history a little too much. Michigan hasnt been that good, penn state has been very inconsistent, they've had some losing seasons in the past 6 years, Wisconsin is tough to tell because they havent beaten an OOC ranked opponent for 4 years, Nebraska's been good and average all in the same year, Ohio state has been elite, iowa is up and down. The past few years you've had Stanford and Oregon who has been consistently good. In the past four years, id definately take Pac over the B1G. Outside of Ohio State, name me a team thats won a big OOC game? History is important, but I suppose it's also important to define the context of the conversation. For me, 20 years ago is relevant IF you had a tremendously successful team back then and pretty much up to now. It's important because that past success helps build a huge fan base, boosters, infrastructure and helps a program with success over the long haul. Certainly a team like Kansas State can have success (Snyder being the fantastic coach he is), but without the history of a Nebraska or Oklahoma, it's far more likely that Nebraska will be good three-five years from now than KSU. That, to me, is why history is so important. Any team can have a good couple or five year run. All it takes is a couple of really good recruiting classes. Look at UConn in the first part of last decade. Today they stink. Same for Rutgers. Both had success, but neither has the history necessary to make a solid run for a long time. That's why history is so important to me in this discussion. Quote Link to comment
mrandyk Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Standford Standford Standford THERE IS NO D IN STANFORD! (Probably because they play in the Pac-12) 1 Quote Link to comment
huskerfan333157 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does anyone mind if I split this Pac-10/Big Ten conversation away from the Rex thread? It's a good conversation, but it doesn't really belong here. Thats fine. We'll have to agree to disagree, You're going by overall record of the teams while im going by individual seasons which is why we have an difference of opinion. IN the past 5 years, Standford, Oregon and USC have had great seasons, Utah had one. For the big, Ohio State, Penn state had one, Wisconsin has had a few but they still didnt beat a good opponent outside of the B1G. Youre looking at records overall but im looking at individual seasons. Quote Link to comment
sd'sker Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does anyone mind if I split this Pac-10/Big Ten conversation away from the Rex thread? It's a good conversation, but it doesn't really belong here. Thats fine. We'll have to agree to disagree, You're going by overall record of the teams while im going by individual seasons which is why we have an difference of opinion. IN the past 5 years, Standford, Oregon and USC have had great seasons, Utah had one. For the big, Ohio State, Penn state had one, Wisconsin has had a few but they still didnt beat a good opponent outside of the B1G. Youre looking at records overall but im looking at individual seasons. maybe you should provide some of the pac 12's quality ooc victories. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 Utah's one great season was in the WAC, though. Even presuming they could duplicate that season, that's still only three teams. Stanford is staring down the barrel of another few seasons like 2002-2008. Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Still waiting for you to list the "elite" Pac 12 teams, and their amazing OOC victories. Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The only argument to be made for the Pac12 being better than the B1G is that every year they seem to have an elite team or two like USC earlier in the millenium, Oregon since Chip Kelly got there, and Stanford. We will see what happens with Stanford now that Andrew Luck is gone. That guy was simply amazing. Other than a team or two being really good, the Pac12 absolutely stinks. Washington, Washington State, Oregon State, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, and Cal all have never been better that 8-win teams at best in the past 15 years. On the other hand, the B1G has Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and now Nebraska, all of which perennially win a minimum of 8 games per season pretty much any given year. Quote Link to comment
mrandyk Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Utah's one great season was in the WAC, though. Even presuming they could duplicate that season, that's still only three teams. Stanford is staring down the barrel of another few seasons like 2002-2008. They went undefeated in 04 and 08, but that's still only two seasons. Utah is going to be a perennial doormat in the Pac-12. Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 PAC 12 top 2-3 > B1G top 2-3 B1G top half > PAC 12 top half B1G as a whole > PAC 12 as a whole The top 2-3 in the PAC 12 also benefit from getting 4-5 easy wins a year over the bottom dwellers in the conference. Quote Link to comment
Hooked on Huskers Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The PAC-10 and Big Ten, the last ten years, according to Jeff Sagarin: I know outside this thread topic but I thorough enjoyed Saragin ratings especially SOS, ELO chess and Predictor columns. Very interesting. BTW, I'm still waiting for Sagarin 2012 poll.......what's the release date? Granted for the first month, outrageous raw ratings but it's still fun reading. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 Top-to-bottom there's no way the Pac-12 is better than the Big Ten. I could see an argument that the two best teams in the P12 are better than the two best teams in the B1G, but again, that depends entirely on the year. It fluctuates, and both conferences have had down years recently. Heck, just four years ago we trounced the #2 team, Arizona. Crushed them. And before anyone says we lost to their #3 team the next year, recall all the circumstances of that game. It's not relevant to this conversation. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.