Suck it Irish

[masteen]

Those racist pricks in South Bend are reaping exactly what they sowed when they fired Ty Willingham three years into rebuilding the program. That fat fuck Weiss couldn't recruit a hooker in Thailand. They might not even beat the service academies this season.

[Winnow]

I don't mind Michigan winning this one. I just like watching UM lost to Pac Ten schools, but I hate the Irish.

Beating the worst ranked offense in college football is better than losing to them. I watched the first quarter. It was a comedy of errors on both sides but Notre Dame was clearly the worst team.

OhioSU @ Washington is more interesting. OSU has managed a whole 3 points at halftime vs an unranked team!

[Raistin]

God damn it,I was hoping ND would win and all of UM would kill themselves. Now we lose next week. fuck

[Al]

At least it was a close game... I mean, it could have been a blowout.

[Zamtuk]

OhioSU @ Washington is more interesting. OSU has managed a whole 3 points at halftime vs an unranked team!

Yeah, and check that end result. I would get mildly irritated at your constant stupid fucking jabs at Big Ten teams, but I always laugh that you root for ASU. They haven't been relevent in any sport aside from softball in years. I don't know how anyone can talk so much shit and come from such a horrible football (sports) school. When was the last time you were in a nationally televised game?

But I really do thank you for letting us use your facilities in our postseason.

[Winnow]

Yeah, and check that end result. I would get mildly irritated at your constant stupid fucking jabs at Big Ten teams, but I always laugh that you root for ASU. They haven't been relevent in any sport aside from softball in years. I don't know how anyone can talk so much shit and come from such a horrible football (sports) school. When was the last time you were in a nationally televised game?

But I really do thank you for letting us use your facilities in our postseason.

ASU, along with the Pac Ten blows every other conference away in total NCAA Titles, both individual, team, men and womens, in any time frame you wish to use. Don't give me your Big Ten relevance BS. (before you embarrass yourself, search this board for the stats I posted)

As for football, take away OSU and the Big Ten is absolutely nothing this year while you still have Cal and Oregon in the Pac Ten, along with probably six teams that would walk all over Michigan, which I guess is your next best team.

And don't compare OhioSU (not to confuse it with Oregon State) to USC. USC destroys Michigan or OSU in relevance in the past 20 years. USC is odds on favorite to get it's 4th Heisman in the last seven years, and another National Title to add to the two recent ones and two more recent, played for but just missed national titles.

ASU vs Michigan and OSU is 1-1, (2-1 if you want to count little ASU beating UM, lol) with OSU barely beating the Sun Devils in the final minute of the Rose Bowl, and ASU beating UM in the Rosebowl. Oh yeah, you're sooo much better!

Grats to OhioSU for beating one of the unranked Pac Ten teams this year! You lost the last two times against Washington so it's about time.

[masteen]

And don't compare OhioSU (not to confuse it with Oregon State) to USC. USC destroys Michigan or OSU in relevance in the past 20 years. USC is odds on favorite to get it's 4th Heisman in the last seven years, and another National Title to add to the two recent ones and two more recent, played for but just missed national titles.

OSU at least played for the title last season, and USC would have gotten it's shit pushed in as surely as the Bucknuts did. USC might have had the speed to keep up, but there's no way a young QB beats the pressure the last year's d-line applied every down, much less when he sees the Eraser coming in on a safety blitz.

I'd also like to add that during the 90's (and before), USC had nothing but the band going for it. They were a football non-entity, so saying they are some fucking multi-decade juggernaut is flat out untrue. The PAC-10 is the ACC of the new millenium: one 800 pound gorilla surrounded by whipping boys who exist to fluff that monkey's dick.

[Winnow]

I'd also like to add that during the 90's (and before), USC had nothing but the band going for it. They were a football non-entity, so saying they are some fucking multi-decade juggernaut is flat out untrue. The PAC-10 is the ACC of the new millenium: one 800 pound gorilla surrounded by whipping boys who exist to fluff that monkey's dick.

Let me refresh your memory on USC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Trojans_football

11 National Titles with only seven years this millenium so far...even if they won the National Title every year since 2000, that still leaves 4 National titles! They've won 2 since 2000 so that leaves 9 National Titles to scatter around the decades.

Arizona State played for the National Title in 1997 so it's not that long ago unless there's only 20 1-A football teams and they're supposed to be in the national championship game every ten years.

Even if you believe the Big Ten is equal to the Pac-10, or even slightly ahead, the Pac-10 gets major props for being the only one of the four major conferences with at least 10 teams that plays a complete round-robin. It may be unrealistic to expect the Big 10, much less the ACC, SEC and Big 12, to do as much. No matter -- the Pac-10 is the only league that asks its members to play nine conference games. That guarantees a degree of difficulty across the board that the other conferences choose not to match.

Yes, the rebuttal is swift. The Pacific-10 Conference is more lopsided than a second-grade clay sculpture. USC has won the last five conference championships. In fact, to find the last time a Pac-10 team so much as tied the Trojans in the standings, you have to go all the way back to, um, 2006.

California tied USC for the conference title last year with a 7-2 record. While the Trojans do dominate the Pac-10, they lost at both Oregon State and UCLA last season. Oregon has won consistently for a decade. Arizona State has hired Dennis Erickson to improve its program, while Ty Willingham is quietly (he does everything quietly) rebuilding Washington. UCLA and Oregon State both have veteran teams that finished strong last season.

This argument can be advanced on Sept. 1, when Washington State plays at Wisconsin, or the following two Saturdays, when Oregon plays at Michigan and Ohio State travels to Washington, respectively.

We can always hope that when the New Year dawns, that the sun will rise in the east and the Pac-10 and Big Ten again will meet in the Rose Bowl. It's only happened in three of the last seven years. By the way, the Pac-10 is 3-0.

Now the SEC is the best conference in football but the Pac Ten is arguably #2.

[Zamtuk]

Jesus Christ. USC has won 2 (well, 1.5 actually) championships in the past TWENTY NINE years. Yeah, real fucking relevant. I won't argue about their team in the past few years, but I wouldn't go swinging my dick around about the program, either.

If you really want to get excited, then talk about how OSU has scheduled USC for the next two years, then we can talk. I wonder why no one considers ASU to be a quality opponent these days? And yes, playing for the championship (and losing!) ten years ago is fucking shitty for a football team, if you want to brag about them. It shows that the program just had one good year, a la Boise State, and Utah a few years back, except they lost their bowl game, so they weren't even that notable. At least the people that argue about their big ten teams are rich in tradition and history to have something to at least be proud of.

But in honor of winnow, HAHAHEHAEHO OSU 1 PAC TEN 0 WAY TO SUCK YOU SHITTY CONFERENCE!!O@#!#O

[Boogahz]

I'd also like to add that during the 90's (and before), USC had nothing but the band going for it. They were a football non-entity, so saying they are some fucking multi-decade juggernaut is flat out untrue. The PAC-10 is the ACC of the new millenium: one 800 pound gorilla surrounded by whipping boys who exist to fluff that monkey's dick.

Let me refresh your memory on USC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Trojans_football

11 National Titles with only seven years this millenium so far...even if they won the National Title every year since 2000, that still leaves 4 National titles! They've won 2 since 2000 so that leaves 9 National Titles to scatter around the decades.

Did you read the link you posted? You proved his point for him:

1980s-1990s
In the 1980s, USC football did not realize a national championship, though it continued to experience relative success, with top-20 AP rankings and PAC-10 Conference Championships. Under head coaches Ted Tollner (1983-1986) and Larry Smith (1987-1992), each winning the Rose Bowl once, USC was recognized among the nation's top-ten teams three times. However, some alumni had grown accustomed to the programs' stature as a perennial national championship contender. In 1993, Robinson was named head coach a second time, leading the Trojans to a victory in the 1996 Rose Bowl over Northwestern.

However, losing streaks of 11 years (1983-1993) to intersectional rival Notre Dame and 8 years (1991-1998) to crosstown rival UCLA were unacceptable to some USC supporters. In 1998, head coach Paul Hackett took over the team, but posted an even more disappointing 19-18 record in three seasons. By 2000, some observers surmised that USC football's days of national dominance were fading; the football team's record of 37-35 from 1996 to 2001 was their second-worst over any five-year span in history (only the mark of 29-29-2 from 1956-1961 was worse), and the period marked the first and only time USC had been out of the final top 20 teams for four straight years.

[Sueven]

The Pac 10 is a good conference this year. I'd rate it:

SEC > Pac 10 > Big East = Big 12 > Big 10 > ACC.

I think the Pac 10 is most comparable to the Big 12 recently. Both conferences always have at least one really elite team (Texas or Oklahoma in the Big 12, USC or... USC in the Pac 10). Both conferences have other high-quality programs who are capable of stepping up and having big years, but have only very rarely been capable of playing at an elite level in the past decade or so (Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, versus California, Oregon, UCLA, Oregon State).

It's hard to give much respect to ASU since they've been one of the most hideously underachieving teams in the country for the past few years. They're like the West Coast Pitt. Dennis Erickson was a good hire (even though Winnow hated it), and perhaps he can firm up the team and move them into the contender category as well.

[Winnow]

So the Pac Ten has had two teams play for the national championship in the last ten years. How about other conferences? Does a conference out there have three teams that have played for the national championship?

I'm not saying ASU is an elite team but there's not a whole hell of a lot of teams that get to play for the National Title within the decade, especially when USC hogs all the opportunities. It's not our fault we've have the uber football team in the Nation for most of this decade.

So far I've been wrong with Dennis Erickson. I've watched all three Sun Devil football games. Besides some nasty penalties for late hits on kick offs, the team has been well disciplined.

Sueven, in this thread you agree with my top two conference rankings yet in the other thread you make it look like I was trying to claim something else. That thread was mostly comparing the Pact Ten vs Big Ten.

While the Big Ten is even more lopsided with Michigan and OSU, at least the Pac Ten rotates a second team up into the #2 spot instead of always haveing the same two teams at the top. Cal, ASU, Washington, Oregon, UCLA, have all been ranked very high in the past ten years. I'm kind of sick of the "only USC" schtick when the top two teams are much more diverse than the Big Ten.

[Sueven]

Well, the BCS didn't exist in 1997. Arizona State didn't play in the National Championship game that year, because a national championship didn't exist. They played in (and lost) the Rose Bowl. The team that beat them (Ohio State) didn't win the title. Regardless, I'll give you credit for it.

Anyway, in the BCS era, the conferences have had the following number of participants in national championship games:

SEC: 3 (Tennessee, LSU (x2), Florida)
ACC: 1 (Florida State (x3))
Big East: 2 (Virginia Tech, Miami (x2)) (when these teams were in the Big East)
Big Twelve: 3 (Texas, Oklahoma (x3), Nebraska)
Big Ten: 1 (Ohio State (x2))
Pac Ten: 2 (USC (x2), plus I'm giving you credit for ASU the prior year)

As far as USC 'hogging all the opportunities,' they're certainly a good team and have played for a number of championships. Note, however, that they've only played in 2 BCS title games. Every single other conference has a team that has played in at least 2 BCS title games, with Florida State and Oklahoma having participated in 3 apiece in the past 9 years. So the claim that ASU is disadvantaged by playing in the conference with the powerhouse is incorrect.

So in conclusion: The Pac Ten is around the middle in terms of 'number of teams playing for national championships.' It's tied with the Big East and the ACC for spots 3-5 in the 'total championships played for' list. You're getting a boost by the fact that I'm counting ASU, but I guess you're also being punished because I'm not counting USC's AP National Championship team (of course, if I was counting that team, I'd have to count Auburn as well, and the SEC would look even better).

Also, there's no reason to be offended by my comments on ASU. I called ASU the West Coast Pitt. Pitt is a 5-time national champion which has been down recently. As far as I know, ASU is a 0-time national champion. It's a flattering comparison. ASU is a perfectly respectable school that ranks with programs like Pitt, Clemson, Colorado and other totally respectable programs.

You're right that there's more rotation at the top of the Pac Ten than there is in the Big Ten, but I think you're exaggerating the point. Of those second-tier Pac Ten teams you mention, most have been pretty-good-but-not-great. The exceptions that I can think of are Oregon with Joey Harrington and Arizona State with Jake Plummer (who is already RETIRED FROM THE NFL). I'm sure there's another great season or two in there. But the Big Ten is more than just Ohio State and Michigan, even recently. Wisconsin finished with only one loss last year (a feat that no Pac Ten team accomplished), Penn State had a superb one-loss season a few years back, and so on. Penn State deserves to be mentioned as a Big Ten power alongside OSU and UM, and Wisconsin is in a Cal-like state, pushing for a spot as an elite program.

Anyway, I do agree with you that the Pac Ten is the second-best conference in the country at the moment, and that's it's vastly better than the Big Ten at the moment, and at least comparable to the Big Ten in recent history. I think you're overarguing your point, especially with regard to the recent-but-not-current power of the Pac Ten, and so I'm nitpicking some things, but generally I'm with you.

[Winnow]

Well, the BCS didn't exist in 1997. Arizona State didn't play in the National Championship game that year, because a national championship didn't exist. They played in (and lost) the Rose Bowl. The team that beat them (Ohio State) didn't win the title. Regardless, I'll give you credit for it.

I want to point out that ASU was a lock for the pre BCS title in 1997 if they won the Rose Bowl (with FSU losing in the Sugar Bowl). They were undefeated and also beat the #1 team in the nation earlier in the year (Nebraska) along with USC, etc. OSU didn't take the National title because they could only play spoilers that year having lost earlier in the year.

It's not a "give me" situation. ASU was the National Champion in 1997 pending the outcome of the Rose Bowl. FSU was the other undefeated team but lost to Florida. If they had won along with ASU, it would have been a mess.

1996 Results

September 7: Arizona State 45, Washington 42
September 14: Arizona State 52, North Texas 7
September 21: Arizona State 19, Nebraska 0
September 28: Arizona State 48, Oregon 27
October 5: Arizona State 56, Boise State 7
October 12: Arizona State 42, UCLA 34
October 19: Arizona State 48, USC 35 (2 OT)
October 26: Arizona State 41, Stanford 9
November 2: Arizona State 29, Oregon State 14
November 9: Arizona State 35, California 7
November 23: Arizona State 56, Arizona 14

From Wiki:

Florida defeated Florida State in the Sugar Bowl, which was the designated National Championship that year. Florida had faced Florida State earlier in the year, when they were ranked #1 and #2, and lost. Were it not for Texas beating Nebraska, then #3, in the first ever Big 12 championship game, Florida wouldn't have even been in the title game.

And even once they were there, it wasn't certain a victory would mean a national championship. The Rose Bowl game featured #2 Arizona State and #4 Ohio State. Florida St. and Arizona St. were the only unbeatens going into bowl season, so a Rose Bowl victory would give the Sun Devils a legitimate chance on winning the title. This scenario looked plausible as Arizona State's Jake Plummer scored with 1:40 left to play in the game, making the score 17-14. But Ohio State's backup quarterback Joe Germaine marched down the field to pull out a heart stopping 20-17 win.

# Sugar Bowl: #3 Florida 52, #1 Florida St. 20
# Rose Bowl: #4 Ohio St. 20, #2 Arizona St. 17
# Fiesta Bowl: #7 Penn State 38, #20 Texas 15
# Orange Bowl: #6 Nebraska 41, #10 Virginia Tech 21

[Sueven]

I don't deny that ASU would have won the National Championship if they had beat OSU in the Rose Bowl. That does not mean that they played in a championship game. A championship game, by definition, is one in which the winning team becomes the champion. ASU lost to the #4 team, as opposed to the #1 or 2 team which they would have played in a real championship game. Also, in the pre-BCS era, there are plenty of teams who entered bowl season with legitimate national title hopes, while in the post-BCS era, there are only two. This makes it impossible to accurately compare this sort of accomplishment across eras.

I'm not denigrating ASU's accomplishments that season, just saying that their accomplishments do not include playing in a real championship game. You had a great team which came within a minute and a half of having an undefeated championship season. That is your accomplishment, and that is what is truly important, not your non-existent participation in a championship game.

[masteen]

But it's moot, because they coughed up a fat dick in the Rose Bowl, while the Gators beat FSU pretty easily because there were no ACC refs there to allow the Holes to rape Danny for 5 seconds after every play was over.

[Sylvus]

Well, the BCS didn't exist in 1997. Arizona State didn't play in the National Championship game that year, because a national championship didn't exist. They played in (and lost) the Rose Bowl. The team that beat them (Ohio State) didn't win the title. Regardless, I'll give you credit for it.

Anyway, in the BCS era, the conferences have had the following number of participants in national championship games:

SEC: 3 (Tennessee, LSU (x2), Florida)
ACC: 1 (Florida State (x3))
Big East: 2 (Virginia Tech, Miami (x2)) (when these teams were in the Big East)
Big Twelve: 3 (Texas, Oklahoma (x3), Nebraska)
Big Ten: 1 (Ohio State (x2))
Pac Ten: 2 (USC (x2), plus I'm giving you credit for ASU the prior year)

As far as USC 'hogging all the opportunities,' they're certainly a good team and have played for a number of championships. Note, however, that they've only played in 2 BCS title games. Every single other conference has a team that has played in at least 2 BCS title games, with Florida State and Oklahoma having participated in 3 apiece in the past 9 years. So the claim that ASU is disadvantaged by playing in the conference with the powerhouse is incorrect.

So in conclusion: The Pac Ten is around the middle in terms of 'number of teams playing for national championships.' It's tied with the Big East and the ACC for spots 3-5 in the 'total championships played for' list. You're getting a boost by the fact that I'm counting ASU, but I guess you're also being punished because I'm not counting USC's AP National Championship team (of course, if I was counting that team, I'd have to count Auburn as well, and the SEC would look even better).

Also, there's no reason to be offended by my comments on ASU. I called ASU the West Coast Pitt. Pitt is a 5-time national champion which has been down recently. As far as I know, ASU is a 0-time national champion. It's a flattering comparison. ASU is a perfectly respectable school that ranks with programs like Pitt, Clemson, Colorado and other totally respectable programs.

You're right that there's more rotation at the top of the Pac Ten than there is in the Big Ten, but I think you're exaggerating the point. Of those second-tier Pac Ten teams you mention, most have been pretty-good-but-not-great. The exceptions that I can think of are Oregon with Joey Harrington and Arizona State with Jake Plummer (who is already RETIRED FROM THE NFL). I'm sure there's another great season or two in there. But the Big Ten is more than just Ohio State and Michigan, even recently. Wisconsin finished with only one loss last year (a feat that no Pac Ten team accomplished), Penn State had a superb one-loss season a few years back, and so on. Penn State deserves to be mentioned as a Big Ten power alongside OSU and UM, and Wisconsin is in a Cal-like state, pushing for a spot as an elite program.

Anyway, I do agree with you that the Pac Ten is the second-best conference in the country at the moment, and that's it's vastly better than the Big Ten at the moment, and at least comparable to the Big Ten in recent history. I think you're overarguing your point, especially with regard to the recent-but-not-current power of the Pac Ten, and so I'm nitpicking some things, but generally I'm with you.

If the Pac Ten has 2 teams because of ASU appearing in the Rose Bowl and losing, the Big 10 should have 2 for Michigan (the following year) appearing in the Rose Bowl and winning, ending up with an undefeated season and a share of the national championship.

I'm just sayin'.

[Sueven]

Good point!

[Raistin]

Penn State vs Pacific-10 Conference

22wins 11loses 0ties 0.667 704 PF 535 PA


So that makes Penn State rulers of the Pac-10? I'm just saying...

[Raistin]

Matter of fact, it seems the only Conference that has hung with Penn State though all years, is the SEC. If we want to start waving cocks around, I don't think many people outside PSU or the Big 10 can say shit about them. Sure 4 down years out of 50, people think the program is dead. But hey, were alive and kicking to lose to UM next week! But at least we only lose to people in house.

Atlantic Coast Conference: 89wins 21 loses 2 ties 804%
Big 12 Conference: 21 wins 13 loses .618%
Big East Conference 171wins 77loses 11 ties .681%
Big Ten Conference 85wins 60 loses 2ties 0.585 %
Blah I can go on and on, if you want follow the link

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... s_conf.php

[Sabek]

I want to point out that ASU was a lock for the pre BCS title in 1997 if they won the Rose Bowl (with FSU losing in the Sugar Bowl). They were undefeated and also beat the #1 team in the nation earlier in the year (Nebraska) along with USC, etc. OSU didn't take the National title because they could only play spoilers that year having lost earlier in the year.

It's not a "give me" situation. ASU was the National Champion in 1997 pending the outcome of the Rose Bowl. FSU was the other undefeated team but lost to Florida. If they had won along with ASU, it would have been a mess.

And IF OSU beat Florida last January they were "locks" to be the national champions.
Umm in that case OSU got it handed to them by Florida. In your case ASU got beaten by OSU. You want to be national champs, beat your opponents.
ASU didn't so they weren't National champs.

Man Notre Dame was a lock for the National Championship this year. A shame they couldn't win any of their first three games.

Quit whining already about how OSU did ASU wrong in that game. You want to be champs WIN YOUR GAMES.

There are no muligans.

[Ashur]

Why the fuck does every football thread turn into a discussion of ASU. Like they're even relevant?

[Winnow]

Why the fuck does every football thread turn into a discussion of ASU. Like they're even relevant?

More relevant this year than Michigan!

and back during the 1996 season when ASU almost won a national champioship! Go Suns.

[Zamtuk]

Not to mention that ASU had to play through the horrid Pac-10 that year to earn an AUTOMATIC BID to the Rose Bowl, only to let some upstart "spoiler" team from an inferior conference beat you.

Kind of different then running the board all year at a consistent number 1 then losing.

[Winnow]

Kind of different then running the board all year at a consistent number 1 then losing.

Yeah, ASU had to earn their ranking from being unranked at the beginning of the season, unlike teams like....oh...MICHIGAN, that get a #5 preseason ranking and lose to 1-AA teams and lose 39-7 at home to a Pac Ten team.

Oh, and beating the #1 team in the country along the way. (erm, not just beating, shutting them out)

Weakest argument yet from the OSU fan!

[Zamtuk]

Really? Are you insinuating that we were overrated last year? We played in THREE 1v2 games for the first time in NCAA history, and went 2-1. We were uncontested for the entire year, and we had a nasty non-conference schedule. Aside from that game I won't mention (fu masteen) there was no doubt who was the best. You 'earned' it by having a bullshit conference schedule that year, where the Pac 10 blew.

[Winnow]

Really? Are you insinuating that we were overrated last year? We played in THREE 1v2 games for the first time in NCAA history, and went 2-1. We were uncontested for the entire year, and we had a nasty non-conference schedule. Aside from that game I won't mention (fu masteen) there was no doubt who was the best. You 'earned' it by having a bullshit conference schedule that year, where the Pac 10 blew.

OSU wasn't overrated last year but how can you say ASU didn't earn their shot at the National Title by shutting out the #1 ranked team in the nation and going undefeated? What's better than beating #1 (19-0) and then going undefeated? The Big Ten always sucks so if the Pac Ten sucked one year, it's not the end of the world. They beat everyone including #1 convincingly.

[Zamtuk]

Big Ten always sucks? So you really have no apparent knowledge of college football at all? I'm not really sure why I continue these arguments as I somehow thought you could deviate from your diehard anything-related-to-Arizona fanboism. Oh well, even though it didn't matter in the slightest to me as your team meant nothing to the college landscape, I actually am more proud of a Rose Bowl win we had ten years ago.

[Wulfran]

back to the original topic, Notre Dame is another school I like to see stumble. 0-4 for the first time in 119 years or some shit? hehehe

[Vaemas]

0 - 5.