SEC

USC definately wouldn't have enjoyed the success they have had recently if they were in the SEC. They would have lost at least a game a season which would have kept them out of a championship or two.

 

huh? USC would have had as good a chance as any to win the SEC, and thus had a shot at playing in the BCS title game. Didn't a one-loss SEC team made the championship this year.

what your saying is that USC wouldn't be good enough to compete in the SEC. that's silly talk. After Fla, LSU, Auburn, Tenn, and maybe Arkansas, what does the SEC have? Miss St., Miss, Vandy, Kentucky and S. Carolina. the SEC less top heavy than all other conferences, but the Pac 10 is pretty close to being as strong top to bottom.

USC would have as good a chance at winning an SEC title as the SEC's top teams would at winning a Pac 10 crown.

Florida beat an overrated Ohio State team. wonderful. They also lucked out in beating Arkansas, who was beaten by the Big 10's third best team and throttled at home by southern cal.

 

No I'm not. I'm saying they likely would have lost a game. That's not saying they couldn't compete.

 

losing a game doesn't necessarily keep them out of title contention. it didn't in for USC in 2003 and it didn't for florida this year. keep in mind that it took a season-ending fuckup by USC to give Fla. a spot in the title game. USC beats UCLA and florida's playing Notre dame or some shit. what's that say about the SEC in comparison to the Pac 10, at least in the minds if people whose opinions matter?

 

You use alot of ifs. Look at the final rankings. We were discussing the strongest conference, not teams. The people who matter agree with me.

# of top 25 by Conference
Big East 3
Pac 10 3
Big 12 2
SEC 6
Big 10 4

 

I guess I'm missing the part that says USC's chances at a national championship would be more difficult as a member of the SEC. Is there some fine print or something? I left my bifocals at home

 

The point is that the SEC was the strongest conference this year. I added that they would have had a difficult time winning two championships if they plaid SEC teams every week.

 

for the record and in all seriousness, I think the sec is the strongest. but
my point is the SEC's standing as the toughest conference is not as clearcut and ironclad as some think. not sure how much stock people put in schedule strength, but the Pac 10 had eight of the top 10 toughest schedules last season (sec had the other two). the Pac 10 typically plays the most difficult non-conference games while the SEC feasts on western carolina, Lousiana-Monroe, middle tennessee state and south central florida. maybe pac 10 schools should do the same. I'm guessing it would place one or two in the top 25 by year's end.

 

The Trojans would still be good in the SEC...but not like they are now. S. Carolina and Kentucky are starting to show big improvements...Alabama has Saban...

Yes... Auburn, UT, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas and LSU could all beat USC...but even the weaker games are tough. S. Carolina almost beat (lost by 7 or less) Auburn, UT, Florida, and Arkansas. Kentucky beat Georgia and Clemson.

Playing competition like that week in and week out adds to the injuries and fatiigue.

Not to mention they wouldn't be able to totally dominate in recruiting like they can in the Pac-10. Right now 6 of the top 10 teams are from the SEC. The others are Texas, Notre Dame, Southern Cal, and Nebraska.

 

and arkansas is the only one of the batch that would ever dream of playing home-home against southern cal.