Big Ten vs. Pac-12 - which is the better conference?

[knapplc]

Why in the world would you ignore past history? That makes no sense.

Who do you think has a better chance of winning a national championship in the next five years, Nebraska or Iowa State? Nebraska, clearly. Why? Because we've been there before, we have a huge fan base, better facilities, better overall infrastructure, etc. The machine that is Nebraska Football is far larger than Iowa State, and that's based on past history, not just the last few years of success.

 

[huskerfan333157]

The PAC-10 and Big Ten, the last ten years, according to Jeff Sagarin:

Year B1G Pac10

2002 5 2

2003 3 4

2004 5 2

2005 1 4

2006 5 3

2007 6 2

2008 6 4

2009 6 3

2010 5 1

2011 3 4

Averages: B1G = 4.5, PAC-10 = 2.9

With a couple of years of variance here and there, the PAC-10 has been better than the Big Ten the past ten years. 2006-2010 were particularly painful when it came to the Big Ten. They fell off the map and needed an infusion of life - which they got with Nebraska. Hopefully the divisional format, combined with adding one of history's best teams, boosts the conference as a whole.

This is the main point ive been trying to make, Big 10 has been down for quite a while and has been the fourth best conference in the past 10 years.

 

[knapplc]

Michigan over the past ten years: 82-44

Stanford over the past ten years: 56-63

How is this even a debate? Stanford has been horrible since losing Willingham. They hired Harbaugh and recruited Luck and had three good seasons, and they're about to fall off a cliff again. This "Stanford is better than Michigan" argument makes zero sense.

 

[huskerfan333157]

Why in the world would you ignore past history? That makes no sense.

Who do you think has a better chance of winning a national championship in the next five years, Nebraska or Iowa State? Nebraska, clearly. Why? Because we've been there before, we have a huge fan base, better facilities, better overall infrastructure, etc. The machine that is Nebraska Football is far larger than Iowa State, and that's based on past history, not just the last few years of success.

We're talking about who's been the past conference with better teams in the past 10 years. Thats like saying, "lets rank Nebraska number one because of there past history" or UCLA will be good this year because they've had a pretty good history. Miami has had a good history so lets say that they are one of the best teams nowadays. Past history wont tell you whos going to be good this year or whos going to go on a mini run and be good for 5 years. If thats the case then UCLA might be good this year because they've had a decent history. Notre Dame should be good this year because they've had a past history. Lets rank Notre Dame as one of the best teams for the next 10 years because look at their history! Sure, teams with history wont stay down for as long but thats not saying a school cant go on a mini run (like standford). We're looking at whos been the best conference in the past 5-10 years, not anything thats happened 10+ years ago. In the past 10 years the PAC has been better than the B1G

 

[knapplc]

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?

 

[sd'sker]

Michigan over the past ten years: 82-44

Stanford over the past ten years: 56-63

How is this even a debate? Stanford has been horrible since losing Willingham. They hired Harbaugh and recruited Luck and had three good seasons, and they're about to fall off a cliff again. This "Stanford is better than Michigan" argument makes zero sense.

michigan is going to be good. this is a weird debate. what we should be debating is why michigan got it turned around so much more quickly than us. it may be premature, but their future certainly seems bright; much brighter than stanford's.

 

[huskerfan333157]

Michigan over the past ten years: 82-44

Stanford over the past ten years: 56-63

How is this even a debate? Stanford has been horrible since losing Willingham. They hired Harbaugh and recruited Luck and had three good seasons, and they're about to fall off a cliff again. This "Stanford is better than Michigan" argument makes zero sense.

So youre saying the B1G has been a better conference than the PAC in the past 10 years? You've even said the PAC has been better than the B1G in the past 10 years yet youre arguing with me over my opinion that the PAC's been better?

 

[knapplc]

A note - using the Sagarin ratings for conferences like I did requires a huge caveat. Namely, the Pac-10 always got a huge boost by playing only three OOC games. Their round-robin 9-game conference schedule helped them immensely in their Sagarin ratings every year. I even discussed this with Sagarin via email. He acknowledged the potential bias - but defended his formula, of course.

 

[huskerfan333157]

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 havent 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?

 

[huskerfan333157]

A note - using the Sagarin ratings for conferences like I did requires a huge caveat. Namely, the Pac-10 always got a huge boost by playing only three OOC games. Their round-robin 9-game conference schedule helped them immensely in their Sagarin ratings every year. I even discussed this with Sagarin via email. He acknowledged the potential bias - but defended his formula, of course.

Well, you're saying teams witih losing records or average records in a few years is considered "elite" status, never knew you could have a losing record and be elite.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[sd'sker]

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.

 

[huskerfan333157]

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.

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?

 

[knapplc]

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.

It really doesn't matter how you define elite, as long as it's applied equally to both conferences.

Funny note - in the past ten years Nebraska has four bowl wins. Stanford has three.

 

[huskerfan333157]

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