What better way to pass the time than dissecting other bloggers' dissection of college football? As we are only ankle-deep in the 2008 football season, there's not much to talk about other than roster changes, a few sprinkles of info from Spring practices, and maybe a "Our conference is better than yours" argument or two. And that's where we have it. Even though it's not really defending or attacking a particular conference, Bears Necessity made quite a splash with its Which Conference Proved They Were the Strongest? post this week.
"The Big 10 did not defeat a single team above .500 from the big conferences. Not one. Not any. No no no."
I realize that this post was about OOC schedules. Fine. But the entire argument is null and void if you don't include bowl games to the OOC opponent list. Michigan beat Florida and Penn State beat Texas A&M, both teams coming in with .500+ records. I know, teams don't plan who they'll play in the bowl, but don't those games count towards which conference is better? OK though, I'll go along with the regular-season OOC games only. But what about other conferences, like the Pac-10? "...both USC and Arizona St. had two weak schedules this year, but at least the Trojans had to go on the road for two of them (and the Nebraska game did seem like a toughie to begin with)."
Oh, so it's OK for USC to not completely blow the doors off (not right away, at least) of Nebraska because the Huskers were supposed to be better? Naha. If you want to play that card, then you have to give Penn State credit for playing a Notre Dame team coming off of two straight BCS appearances, 10-win seasons and was supposed to finish somewhere around 6-6. Or what about Ohio State's win over Washington in Seattle? The Huskies were 2-0, just off upsetting Boise State. At that point, they were supposed to be a decent team, possibly in bowl contention. If you're going to make an argument, first be careful how much ammo the other side has. "After LSU beating Virginia Tech, no other team defeated a Division I opponent with more than eight wins. Again, the SEC’s accomplishments were internal (beating up on each other) rather than external (11-1 against the Sun Belt! POWER LEVEL RISING!)"
Finally! Someone outside of the Big Ten calling out the SEC for playing glorified high school teams OOC. I don't care what the SEC schedules are like in 2008 (many more teams are traveling a good distance for OOC BCS games), the SEC has still been the absolute worst conference when it comes to playing OOC games away from the Confederate States of America. "Florida State had to go to Boulder (and won), play the Tide (and won) along with getting beaten by the Gators. Thanks to their glorious past, the Seminoles will not be having any light schedules anytime soon."
Colorado lost to Iowa State, Alabama and let Nebraska torch them for 51. (Even though CU won 65-51) Alabama lost to Louisiana-Monroe... 'nuff said there "Cal beating Tennessee was mighty impressive, but it’s always tougher to go into SEC country and win it. South Florida took advantage of Tiger mistakes and blasted their way to victory. Cincinnati obliterating Oregon State was a close 2nd."
This was part of the Big East analysis, but of course a Cal win over an underachieving Tennessee team was "mighty impressive" according to this Cal homer. But for South Florida, the win at Auburn was one of the most underrated games in 2007. At first, everyone was shrugging it off as a fluke. Then USF got to No. 2, and lost to Rutgers. Out came the "Ah ha! I knew they were fake!" arguments. No, and no again. The Big East will never gain respect for what its done the last few years. I can't really explain it. It's just one of those oddities in college football that will never be solved. But now for the topper: "...the Big 10 looks like a total embarrassment in terms of the opponents they face. It’s almost hard to believe why they’ve performed so badly during BCS season–they never look totally prepared for what’s coming to them."
Fared so badly, indeed. The Big Ten has sent seven different teams to the BCS: Ohio State (4-2), Michigan (1-3), Illinois (0-2), Wisconsin (2-0), Penn State (1-0), Iowa (0-1), Purdue (0-1). The SEC has had only six different teams represent the conference in the BCS: LSU (4-0), Florida (3-1), Georgia (2-1), Tennessee (1-1), Alabama (0-1), Auburn (1-0). The Big Ten is 8-9, while the SEC is 11-4. But if the SEC is so wonderful--not saying that the author of Bears Necessity is saying the SEC is better; it's just the most common conference comparison in football, BT vs. SEC--then why hasn't it sent more teams to the BCS on a regular basis? With 12 teams, you'd think there would be a different pairing every year, like the Big Ten had in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (OK, I know, Illinois shouldn't have been there, but they were, so shut up about it already) And if you want to throw a little dirt in their Johnny Reb eyes, just bring up the whole Georgia beating Hawaii thing from last season.
No conference is better than the other. You can't gauge something like that in college football, when teams rarely play common opponents, never mind playing teams from Division I-A. But it sure is fun to argue, isn't it?
- - - -
Just a side note, RUTS just brought it to my attention that Penn State has released its official Spring 2008 roster. I'll take a look at it and give some thoughts.
More below the fold...
