Reply to thread

Message

The argument is silly. They win big games because they only have to play a couple a year. Is Ohio St., Notre Dame and UCLA really big games now? I don't think so. As far as his argument that The Pac 10 has a better record against the SEC since 2000 doesnt apply because you dont know who played who. Ex. if USC had played Vandy in 2000. It would only apply if it were the upper tier teams in each league. To think USC could play an SEC schedule and run the table with no problem is silly. Quick question, would you rather play a schedule with OHIO St. Notre Dame and UCLA spaced out, or play Georgia Auburn or LSU in a row. Not to mention the other 5 teams in the conference you would have to play and a championship game at the end. The pac 10; give me a break :roll:

[QUOTE="jaycoach, post: 443855, member: 12702"] The argument is silly. They win big games because they only have to play a couple a year. Is Ohio St., Notre Dame and UCLA really big games now? I don't think so. As far as his argument that The Pac 10 has a better record against the SEC since 2000 doesnt apply because you dont know who played who. Ex. if USC had played Vandy in 2000. It would only apply if it were the upper tier teams in each league. To think USC could play an SEC schedule and run the table with no problem is silly. Quick question, would you rather play a schedule with OHIO St. Notre Dame and UCLA spaced out, or play Georgia Auburn or LSU in a row. Not to mention the other 5 teams in the conference you would have to play and a championship game at the end. The pac 10; give me a break :roll: [/QUOTE]

Verification