Quote :

"no, if you really know football (which you have made it clear you dont) you can tell what is better product by watching the games. You can see the depth, the team speed, etc. Its the same thing with bball... sure Florida won last year, and LSU and Tennessee had suprising years etc, but on average, SEC basketball cannot compare with ACC. If you watch the games, you can see the difference."

11/6/2006 6:01:51 PM

Quote :

""acc is dominateing in the nfl right now while the sec is dominating in college.""

Five primetime QB's
Peyton -Tennessee
Brady - Michigan
Palmer - So Cal
McNabb - Syracuse
Vick - Va Tech

Five primetime RB's
Larry Johnson - Penn State
Tomlinson - Texas Christian
Clinton Portis -Miami
Tiki Barber - Virginia
Stephen Jackson - Oregon State

Five primetime WR's
Chad Johnson - Oregon State
Terrell Owens - Tennessee Chattanooga
Marvin Harrison - Syracuse
Steve Smith - Utah
Plaxico Burress - Mich. State


so roughly a fifth of those are ACC, and even then, Va Tech and Miami REALLY don't count unless the player was active at that school when it was in the ACC... so that leaves Tiki as the only real ACC guy out there that's doing a heck of a lot... we have Peppers, Rivers, and Barber brothers. I mean there are others, but trying to say the ACC is on par with the amount of talent that the SEC, Pac-10, Big 10, and Big 12 have in the league is... well, it's hcnguyen-ish

11/6/2006 6:02:31 PM

im talking about the last year or 2. of course not historically. how does this make the acc worst now?

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:03 PM. Reason : preseason rankings are based on history. wake is one of the better teams in the country]

11/6/2006 6:03:29 PM

^^ I agree, if you include Miami and VT, which I wouldnt, I would have the ACC right up there. But not counting them, it isnt eve close.


^ god dammit, I am going to blind fold you with dental floss



um, no, they arent. If Wake played the top 10 teams, they MIGHT, and its a strong might, MIGHT win 1

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:04 PM. Reason : d]

11/6/2006 6:03:42 PM

Quote :

"the stats are actually closer than i thought. between offensive and defensive stat, looking at the top 5, the SEC is only placed 2 times more than the ACC. unfortunately all but 1 of the ACC's top 5 stat rankings are from VT, while the SEC's is spread amongst LSU, Auburn, and UF with one from Arkansas."

you asked besides preseason rankings what they had. here is a start. you've already admitted that the top 5 teams in the SEC are quite good, so how are they still managing to post great numbers while playing each other week after week? they arent always playing ole miss or vandy you know.

11/6/2006 6:05:48 PM

I'm not reading this thread but the ACC is the 5th best conference this year in front of only the Big XII, from top to bottom. It won't always be and likely next year will be among the Top 4 again, supplanting the Big East.

The SEC is far and away the best conference. I mean it's not even close. That is the reason we won't see any SEC team in the MNC game either..

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:08 PM. Reason : x]

11/6/2006 6:06:46 PM

If wake played the top 10...


1. Ohio State - would destroy them by 25+

2. Michigan - would destroy them by 25+

3. Texas - would destroy them by 25+

4. Louisville - would destroy them by 15+

5. Auburn - would destroy them by 15+

6. Florida - would destroy them by 15+

7. USC - would destroy them by 25+

8. Notre Dame - would destroy them by 25+

9. California - would destroy them by 25+

10. West Virginia - would destroy them by 15+

11/6/2006 6:09:30 PM

LSU, Tenn, and Ark would also beat them HANDILY.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:11 PM. Reason : though I think 25+ is a bit much.. they aren't UVa, Duke, or UNC at least.]

11/6/2006 6:11:11 PM

the way UF's been playing, they'd win but only by about 7pts.

11/6/2006 6:12:16 PM

he is clueless. all he does is look at stats that have TONS of variables involved that he cant even begin to consider and thinks he can use the Team X beat Team Y who beat Team Z etc type shit. He knows nothing.

11/6/2006 6:12:59 PM

ok, some of the 25+ were too much maybe, but I would say all of them by 2 TDs at least and some of them by a lot more. They couldnt even begin to keep up with the team speed of Cal, USC, LSU and Ohio State

11/6/2006 6:15:34 PM

Yeah, Wake's downside has always been athletic teams.

11/6/2006 6:17:48 PM

LSU and USC in particular... their 3rd string is still twice as athletic as anyone on Wake


Wake beat Duke, DUKE by 1
Syracuse by 10
Carolina by 7
UConn by 11

a "top team" or whatever you called them would beat all of those teams by 30

the fucker is out there right now jacking off over some bullshit convoluted group of stats hes put together: "if you take the lower two acc teams and add their NFL alumni, and let them play the worst big 12 champion ever without their starting defense they would SO win by 100

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:30 PM. Reason : d]

11/6/2006 6:19:56 PM

To be fair, Wake was breaking in a new starting QB in the Duke game (Skinner didn't throw any passes in the first game after Mauk was hurt).

Not saying they're a great team, but the Duke game isn't really representative.

11/6/2006 7:18:43 PM

This what the anti-expansion people were talking about before they got BC, UM and VT. When you have 12 teams and everyone has some tradition, the conference will beat each other up until nobody is undefeated. Then you have teams like West Virginia go almost the entire season as a top 5 team before a real contender knocks them down.

Also, if any of you remember, NC State was pulling in ALOT of recruits towards the end of the 9 team ACC era and we were starting to challenge the only other consistent power in the conference (FSU)

By bringing in VT and Miami, people started focusing on them more of course. This hurt us as much as it helped us.

11/6/2006 7:26:35 PM

Quote :

"Five primetime WR's Chad Johnson - Oregon State Terrell Owens - Tennessee Chattanooga Marvin Harrison - Syracuse Steve Smith - Utah Plaxico Burress - Mich. State"

the fact that you left off Torry Holt makes your entire post worthless. if you don't think he is one of the "primetime WR" in the NFL, you obviously haven't been paying attention.

11/6/2006 8:02:23 PM

^^ well, I think its better to go for the challenge, the harder, tougher league... its better than trying to "hide" or stay in an easier scenario. The result is that the conference will get very competitive and that winning the conference will be a HUGE thing. Its happened to the SEC, sure we would love to win the National Championship, but we realize how hard that is in our current setup so we pretty much just strive for the SEC championship and let everything else sort itself out.

11/6/2006 8:09:07 PM

alright guys forget all the leave teams off bs. i may have started off on a worthless rant but i stumbled upon my recent claiims and they are GOOD.

you guys keep saying sec is the best. me along with everyone else has always thought that but i want some reasons why? why is the sec the best? not just because they are. show me some reasons to back up the sec being so much better than anyone. i've showed you reasons why the sec is not as good as you think (like wvu uga and arkansas usc)

the top 5 sec teams are 1-1 against the pac 10 and that is the only bcs teams they have played.

Quote :

"LSU and USC in particular... their 3rd string is still twice as athletic as anyone on Wake "

where did this number come from? athleticism doensn't = football greatness eaither EARL. grambling is more athletic than wake.

Quote :

"wake would lose to top 10 teams by 25"

who is playing all top 10 teams? how can you use rankings to backup your arguement that rankings arae right. my whole argument is saying the sec is "great" because they are ranked high preseason while the top5 acc teams arent.

miami and fsu were top 10 preseason. they were "twice as athletic" how did that work out?

you guys thought miami and fsu were toe to toe with that sec 5 preseason but no you don't after the acc (and ville) got ahold of them. i go by what happens on the feild not spring camps.

Quote :

"the way UF's been playing, they'd win but only by about 7pts."

so you think wake is only as good as vandy? get out of here

Quote :

"so how are they still managing to post great numbers while playing each other week after week?"

how can teams play each other and both have good stats? if one team is making good stats teh team they are playing is making bad stats. i wish you made sense with your posting.

my main point is you can't say the sec is head and shoulders above every other conference just because they are ranked higher. why are they ranked higher? preaseason? that means they are better? no because fsu and miami were top 10 and are getting toasted in the acc

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 9:36 PM. Reason : yee haw]

11/6/2006 9:34:31 PM

and I have never said that....



once again, I am going to blindfold you with dental floss

11/6/2006 9:40:02 PM

im just saying preseason rankings dont mean much. they are wrong about alot of teams and right now the sec teams are ranked highly solely off preseason and beating other sec teams that are ranked high soley off preaseson (its like a domino effect)

how do we knwo the sec isnt 5 miamis? (ranked like 9 preseason)



YOU GUYS ARE LIKE MINDLESS BOTS THAT CANT THINK OUTSIDE THE REALM OF WHAT ESPN FEEDS YOU. IF THEY SAID JAMAICA AND SENEGAL WERE THE TOP 2 TEAMS IN AMERICA YOU WOULD BELEIVE IT. YOU CAN'T FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINIONS.

MY LOGIC IS UNDENYABLE

11/6/2006 9:53:38 PM

you are the dumbest son of a bitch I have ever known



The one, and I repeat ONE thing I agree with you on, is that preseason rankings shouldnt be as powerful as they are. I wish they didnt rank teams until they are 3-5 weeks into the season.


But one more time, if you watch the games, and know what the hell you are watching, you can tell who the good teams are... you are only going by records and team vs. team comparisons when you say "well, florida is ranked high, but they have only beat Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, LSU so maybe those 4 teams really suck so beating them isnt a big deal" If you couldnt watch a game, had no idea what happened in the games, then your point might be just a tiny bit valid, because all you have to go on are the records. But if you actually watch the games, see the talent, see the play calling, see the execution etc you can tell which teams are really good, and which teams arent.

You are basically using the argument that a totally uninformed, ignorant fool would use (imagine that). It would be like if you showed me the results for some team in fucking Cricket from India... "Well, they are 2-0, but they beat Mumbai and New Delhi, who knows if THEY are actually any good???"

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 10:04 PM. Reason : d]

11/6/2006 10:00:40 PM

Quote :

"how do we knwo the sec isnt 5 miamis? (ranked like 9 preseason)"

Um, maybe because they WON THEIR FUCKING GAMES. Miami has lost 4 times. If any SEC team ranked in the Top 15 lost 4 times, then they'd be a Miami. Jesus fucking christ.

11/6/2006 10:04:26 PM

^ UGA

Quote :

"so you think wake is only as good as vandy? get out of here"

my point was that UF has had many close calls with teams that they were obviously better than skillwise. stupid penalties, bad kicking, and the like have caused them more troubles than necessary. obviously that is all part of "the team," but it just proves their other aspects are really stepping up to the plate.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ignoring the fact that the likelihood of 5 historically good teams sucking is relatively low]

11/6/2006 10:31:54 PM

The sec never really test their strength, simply because they are always highly ranked and never play against any tough "outside opponents". They won't play the ohio states, notre dames, michigans, texas to really test them. We say what happened when they challenged wvu...

11/6/2006 10:34:18 PM

ya but the sec teams havnt played the ville gt and vt. they might all have 3 losses if they did. we just don't know

Quote :

"It would be like if you showed me the results for some team in fucking Cricket from India... "Well, they are 2-0, but they beat Mumbai and New Delhi, who knows if THEY are actually any good???""

it is kind of like that. sure teams look good watching them (i watch just as much football as anybody) but a team looking good doesnt really mean they are better. this is why teams play. clemson looked like a steam engine against gt and some other teams, looked like the most perfect team then turned around and flopped.

its almost like saying app is winning by 21ppg and looking so athletic and ubiquidous on defense while running a beuty spread on offense so they are a really good team.

you just can't do it. app states schedule is comparable to floridas ooc schedule. im not saying app state is good or anything im just showing how your logic is wrong.

when 5 teams play only 2 ooc bcs teams and they split (losing to the better team of the 2 by alot) that then you cannot argue that that conference is waaaay better than everyone else. especially when the other teams are losing to other conferences too.

actually 4 pac10 teams i just learned auburn beat washington state
along with
buffalo
tulane
arakansas state

lsu-
lafayette
arizona
tulane
fresNO

tenn-most beastly ooc sched
almighy cal-who has only beaten the fraud of an oregon team (ou game) and lost to wasu
airforce
marshall
memphis

arkansas-(flawless in the mighty sec
usc-thrashed 50-14
utah state
se montana state
la monroe

florida-
so miss
c florida
wcarolina
lets see how they fair against florida state

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 10:38 PM. Reason : crack on wake beating cuse uconn but the fact is those teams are better than se montana state]

11/6/2006 10:36:26 PM

^good post Hc.

11/6/2006 10:37:12 PM

Quote :

"when 5 teams play only 2 ooc bcs teams and they split (losing to the better team of the 2 by alot) that then you cannot argue that that conference is waaaay better than everyone else. especially when the other teams are losing to other conferences too."

well to be fair, most ppl think UT is a good deal better than Arkansas as well. Arkansas wasnt predicted to do all that well until they brought their game up against Auburn. they ranked up but have sat ever since because they have yet to be tested.

sure every conference has some good teams, but none that historically (and currently) have shown the skills that the SEC has. you know that they arent a bunch of miami's from the past (past seasons and bowls) and the likelihood of them all sucking magically this season is slim.

11/6/2006 10:41:57 PM

Quote :

"(i watch just as much football as anybody)"

This proves you dont...

Quote :

"almighy cal-who has only beaten the fraud of an oregon team (ou game) and lost to wasu"

And the SEC schedule is hard enough, you can have shit for your OOC schedule and still have a really hard schedule in the SEC (Although typically, most SEC schools have good ooc schedules too)

^ exactly

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 10:42 PM. Reason : d]

11/6/2006 10:42:24 PM

Quote :

" And the SEC schedule is hard enough, you can have shit for your OOC schedule and still have a really hard schedule in the SEC"

here we go with another "the sec is good because the sec is SO GOOD" arguement with no backing.

i would understand if they were going out there and beating nd, texas, and alot of good teams then beating each other up but they just aren't. they didn't even win their biggest bowl game.

Quote :

"but none that historically (and currently) have shown the skills that the SEC has. you know that they arent a bunch of miami's from the past (past seasons and bowls) and the likelihood of them all sucking magically this season is slim."

i'm not trying to argue that the sec teams suck. im just trying to leave the possibility of that out there and refute the claim that sec is the undisputed best conference. leaving the door open on who is the best conference.

if you go by historically then watch out for nebraska oklahoma penn state and florida state. they are
some of the best teams historically

you guys have nothing but rankings to show me that the sec is THAT much better than the acc

11/6/2006 10:58:58 PM

I am tired of talking to you. You are clueless

11/6/2006 11:04:51 PM

clueless because i don't think the sec is head and shoulders better than everybody else just because they ARE head and shoulders better than everybody else just because they are ranked higher than everybody else preseason just because last year they were head and shoulders better than everybody else just because they were ranked high in last years preseason just because they were head and shoulders better than everybody else in 2004

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:07 PM. Reason : ya that makes sense]

11/6/2006 11:05:55 PM

i dont think anyone is arguing that they are the be all, end all conference. theres plenty of other good teams out there, but the SEC has a good amount of historic AND current talent. i already told you about some objective stats, but you didnt want to hear about scoring defenses, passing offense, or anything else.

this started as an ACC vs SEC argument and you've now extended that to every conference. those stats i posted show how the only person consistently in the top 5 is VT while LSU, Auburn, and UF all are in there for the SEC.

11/6/2006 11:25:28 PM

stats dont matter to me. wins matter because all stat rankings are is who beat teh shit out of their cupcakes the worst.

11/6/2006 11:28:07 PM

so the undefeated DII and DIII schools should be right up there with Ohio St. in the rankings

FACT?

11/6/2006 11:29:20 PM

^I thought he couldn't see you HC? or me? He's a liar. Fact.

11/6/2006 11:30:35 PM

haha its tempting to take this block off to see what Earl had to say


but i wont do it...gg whoevers alias u are.

11/6/2006 11:31:36 PM

no because they are d1 rankings. i made it clear that the app state example was not literal.

11/6/2006 11:31:51 PM

Whatever dude. You just got caught in a lie!Fact. I don't talk to pretentious liars. Atleast the other people up here don't lie.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:33 PM. Reason : he can't see us...yeah right]

11/6/2006 11:33:04 PM

when theres a million 1 loss teams, id say stats help in determining who is good (particularly defensive stats).

11/6/2006 11:33:47 PM

well if 2 teams are about as good as each other and 1 team plays se montana state while teh other team plays syracuse who do you think will have better defensive stats?

11/6/2006 11:37:07 PM

you keep harping on playing shitty teams, but that gets right back to you originally wanting to ignore UNC and Duke. you're telling me that some ACC teams couldnt rack up the numbers a bit against them?

11/6/2006 11:38:29 PM

Quote :

"when theres a million 1 loss teams, id say stats help in determining who is good (particularly defensive stats)."

I have to disagree with that. I don't see why you would value defensive stats more than anything else. That puts teams built around solid offenses (like louisville and texas this year and usc last year) at a very distinct disadvantage... and that isn't fair.

This is stupid. Anyway you slice it the SEC is far, far superior to the ACC. Just look at the computer ratings. They aren't biased at all and are not based on preseason/last season at all..

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:41 PM. Reason : x]

11/6/2006 11:40:13 PM

i was wrong when i was saying leave off teams. that was before i noticed that the sec isnt even noticably better at the surface.

^they are based on ap and coaches poll though

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:42 PM. Reason : and margin of victory. beating se montana state by 50 is better than beating cuse by 10 to a pc]

11/6/2006 11:41:28 PM

^^ i guess, but you'd hope they'd still have a decent enough defense to hold shitty teams to low numbers.

11/6/2006 11:43:06 PM

ohio state a few years ago wasnt winning games big but they were winning games. winning games is what matters. doesnt matter how you do it as long as you are better than the other team on the feild each day.

11/6/2006 11:44:51 PM

Before I get off I'll do this based purely on Sagarin ratings. I'm going to do the Big East too becaus I feel like it. Top teams from each league based on Sagarin. Keep in mind these are completely unbiased and not based on any polls, human elements, or past season performances.

ACC - SEC - Big East

Clemson (19) - LSU (7) - Louisville (3)
Boston College (21) - Florida (8) - WVU (9)
Virginia Tech (22) - Auburn (11) - Rutgers (15)
Georgia Tech (27) - Tennessee (14) - Pitt (34)
Wake Forest (28) - Arkansas (16) - Cincinnatti (51)
Maryland (29) - South Carolina (36) - South Fla (55)
Florida St (42) - Kentucky (46) - Syracuse (67)
Miami (57) - Alabama (47) - UConn (74)
NC State (62) - Georgia (48)
Virginia (79) - Vanderbilt (73)
UNC (116) - Mississippi St (85)
Duke (156) - Mississippi (99)

There is no conclusion that you can POSSIBLY draw from that other than the SEC is worlds stronger this year than the ACC. The SEC has FIVE teams higher rated than the highest rated ACC team. The Big East has THREE teams higher rated than the highest rated ACC team. The ACC has the 2 lowest rated teams and no dominant team, at all.

-----------------------------

Now lets look at the UNBIASED Sagarin ratings by conference for the three]

Big East (2): 78.00
SEC (3): 77.97
ACC (5): 75.22

The only reason the SEC is behind the Big East is that the BE has no absolute bottom feeders. There bottom 3 schools beat up on the bottom 3 from other BCS conferences)

Quote :

"^they are based on ap and coaches poll though"

No they aren't.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:55 PM. Reason : x]

11/6/2006 11:54:50 PM

well WHY are the acc teams lower? you can't tell me that. the computers are built out of human code and we know that code isnt perfect.

something is wrong if the computers say something and nobody can back up with any reasons why,

ive heard they look better, they have more talent and they are historically better but i know computers arent watching games yet.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:59 PM. Reason : margin of victory is the biggest piece of shit]

11/6/2006 11:58:56 PM

Give me 2 minutes and I'll do it using this:

Quote :

"In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,"

Then I'm going to bed. Tired as shit... I'll edit this post.

11/7/2006 12:02:24 AM

OMG you dumbfuck he just gave you the computer rankings that show how bad the ACC is and you still try to argue....what evidence do you want?

Quote :

"UNDENYABLE"

Quote :

"you are the dumbest son of a bitch I have ever known"

11/7/2006 12:09:03 AM

how is the acc bad qualitatively? you can't just put data out there and say "here" in science;football either.

the most important data is wins and sos.

if computers say one thing but you can't explain why they do then you are only helping my argument. my guess is they are skewed because of mov.

11/7/2006 12:13:00 AM