If by "more than any other conference", you mean not counting the Big 10 (who has been to more BCS games), and Big XII (who has been to the same number), you have a point. Difference between SEC and those others is that we have a winning record when we get there.
So if the same number of top ranked teams are not played, this should be the deciding factor? By season’s end, Auburn beat three teams ranked in the top 10 at the time the games were played. Oklahoma beat one such team. USC beat #7 Cal The argument should have been who gets to play AU. Instead we saw that USC and OU had a rightful place in the game because their pre-season rankings were higher and their schedules were more conducive to going undefeated, thus they were able to pull it off.......
Sure, if the two teams played equivalent top ranked teams, then you can go further down the schedule. But NOT unless they DID play equivalently powered teams at the top half. Once again, it's not the bottom half of your schedule that tests you, it's the top half. I don't care if you played Duke, Vandy, Citadel, and ULM in your OOC if you manage to beat #3 Oklahoma, #5 Ohio State, and #7 Florida in the regular season (speaking hypothecally). Compare that with someone whose best win is against #18, and I don't care what kind of traditional powers they may have played in their OOC, they don't compare. Don't you think this is a bit of stretch?! Of course playing Va Tech helped us out. BUT THEY WERE A BCS BOWL TEAM!! The argument you've been trying to make would be saying LSU wouldn't have made it into the title game if they had played App State instead of Arizona. Let's look at another example. Michigan '06. Were they tested by there tussles with the likes of Notre Dame, Vandy, and Central Michigan? NO. It was their battle with Ohio State that did them in. USC next year: The only OOC game that means squat on legitimizing them as a national title contender is the Ohio State game. I don't care if you beat Virginia, Notre Dame, or William and Mary. The point in those other OOC games are those are games that you are SUPPOSED to win. The point is it doesn't matter how many times you replace the Citadels with the Hawaiis or Notre Dames, you're not being tested in either contest. Also, I don't care if you play in the Pac 10, SEC, or Big East. People like to put a lot of emphasis on the OOC schedule, but if you play 6 top 25 teams, it shouldn't matter if they all came from within your conference, or you scheduled them out of conference.
Not to pile on here uscvball, as you have stood your ground well, but I take issue with a couple of your points. USC does schedule some tough OOC games, no doubt, but teams like Notre Dame and Nebraska(regardless of when scheduled or tradition) should not give you much credit because they were simply awful. Teams that are of much smaller reputation, but better on the field should be given more weight. The game is supposed to be played on the field, not in public relations. You also often make a point of away games instead of at home. I notice many of the tough SEC victories are washed away because they are at home. I agree it is more impressive to beat Auburn or Arkansas away. But isn't it that much worse to lose to Stanford at home? Not only are they not a powerhouse, they beat you with a backup qb. You can't equate Auburn beating a 1A, with you losing to Stanford at home. You just can't. Apparently the home field advantage doesn't add up to much after all. I also take issue on the subject of media markets and the ease with which a school can suppress the media outside of LA. If LSU in 2007-8 is any indication, we suck at it, because RP was in the news every 48 hrs. Nobody stopped his repeatedly bad publicity, and the same can be said about all the kids that got kicked off last year. Plenty of misinformation about RP floats around from all of our rivals, so please don't cry about Sanchez, when the entire USC football team is treated like NFL players in a town like LA. The entire team gets so much positive press on a National level it's not even funny. Despite the highly questionable situation with Bush and Mayo, USC has withstood the negative publicity pretty easily IMO. You appear no closer to NCAA sanctions, you are still reeling in top recruits, and still dominating your conference. It doesn't seem to have caused even a hiccup for you guys.
Yup, and now Reggie is attempting to prevent "smoking gun" evidence from being acquired by the NCAA : link: SignOnSanDiego.com > Sports -- Bush lawyers seek arbitration for suit
I really wish everyone (including our fans) would quit using "at the time we played" 1-11 in the WAC is better than 4-8 in the Pac 10?:hihi: The losses are always more significant. ESPECIALLY to a lesser opponent. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is. If we had lost to Tulane instead of Kentucky, OU would probably been in the BCS CG last year.
Fixed that for you. That is the typical brainwashed drivel that has made Notre Dame relevant for the past decade whan they should have been relegated to South Bend local access channels.
Agreed. Was just using some of the prior train of thought. :wave: I used TO and TD categories for consideration. You knew that. In any one year I agree but I was addressing the concept that somehow 4-0 against SEC teams is < than 1 loss to a bad opponent.
