re: As the season draws closer and closer, Oregon fans get crazier and crazier

It's Cajun not Casian...

quote:

---

quote] "LSU normally only schedules 3 creampuffs" [quote] REALLY ???????????????????????????????????????

---

Hey, not trying to start another fight, but that was a true statement. I saw it with my own eyes. I went on ESPN, schedules, but they only back to 2002. And I found (and you all can check) not once in all those years(so around 10) did LSU schedule more then 1 decent game except last year and this year with 2 each. So yes, that quote is very correct. Normal means, on average. And the average would look something like this over that 10 year span: LSU scheduled 1.2 out of 4 decent football games per year going back 10 years that I saw, ON AVERAGE. Again, it is only last year and this UPCOMING year where this norm has been broken. Look for yourself if you doubt me. And no, I don't want to get back into fighting about scheduling. Actually I said as much way early on, as it is too much work proving it right.

And by the way, I do not know if all those excuses are true about the reasons personally, but those do sound like fair excuses on the surface. And see, that's all UO fans want. Education, both ways. We just do not like denials of known facts. And out West there are no laws or rules that force any teams to play in their states. That seems odd to me with you, but I can see it being true. But it must not be for every game perhaps cause LSU was able to schedule 2 hard ones last year and 2 for this coming year, so why cant they do this every year and not just the last 2? And also, if UO wins, esp if UO wins really big, do you think LSU will quickly reverse this very new trend of playing hard OC's like Tenn and Georgia did? (Tenn canceled their home/home with UNC saying they wanted a easier OOC schedule system and UGA backed out from future home/home with us after we kicked Tenn's arse.

quote:

---

Going to be fun game to watch.

---

Oh yes baby!

quote:

---

nice research but your still missing the point of playing the SEC teams week in and out. The SEC doesn't get higher BCS rating because of cupcake victories. They get higher ratings because pretty much everybody in the sec is solid except for vandy. ole miss has been pretty bad as well.

This is why the PAC-12 has to have great OOC scheduling. it is the only way of surpassing a SEC team in the BCS ratings if they both have the same record

---

This is what I was saying the whole thread. Ducks fly is an idiot. He thinks that just because the PAC1 plays 9 in conference games in a row, that its a tough schedule. Except for the fact that 5 of those teams have a .500 win % OR WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The PAC1 HAS to schedule tough OOC just to get a semi respectable SOS. And even then, as pointed out earlier, the PAC1 still has their share of cupcakes.

The SEC could schedule ONLY high school teams OOC and still play more ranked teams. Ducksfly can only say I make stuff up. These are facts. Whether I spin them to suit my argument or not... they are still facts!

Here is some numbers I put together long ago to shut up some idiot USC fans. I stopped keeping tabs as the facts are painfully obvious for anyone without their head up their arse. So I guess thats why ducksfly can't understand it. I started from 2002 since thats when the website at the time had the schedules/stats/rankings... must have been ESPN but it was long ago and I don't remember.

quote:

---

SEC vs PAC1 comparison

2006

Teams in the top 10? SEC=3, PAC1=1
Teams in the top 25? SEC=6, PAC1=3
Teams in bowl games? SEC=9, PAC1=6
Bowl records? SEC= 6-3 .667, PAC1= 3-3 .500
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=60, PAC1=38
Wins against ranked opponents? SEC=18, PAC1=10


2005

Teams in the top 10? SEC=3, PAC1=1
Teams in the top 25? SEC=5, PAC1=4
Teams in bowl games? SEC=6, PAC1=5
Bowl records? SEC= 3-3 .500, PAC1= 3-2 .600
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=46, PAC1=37
Wins against ranked opponents? SEC=11, PAC1=8


2004

Teams in the top 10? SEC=2, PAC1=2
Teams in the top 25? SEC=4, PAC1=3
Teams in bowl games? SEC=6, PAC1=5
Bowl records? SEC= 3-3 .500, PAC1= 3-2 .600
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=38, PAC1=30
Wins against ranked opponents? SEC=7, PAC1=5


2003

Teams in the top 10? SEC=2, PAC1=2
Teams in the top 25? SEC=5, PAC1=2
Teams in bowl games? SEC=7, PAC1=6
Bowl records? SEC= 5-2 .714, PAC1= 4-2 .667
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=51, PAC1=27
Wins against ranked opponents? SEC=12, PAC1=5


2002

Teams in the top 10? SEC=1, PAC1=2
Teams in the top 25? SEC=5, PAC1=2
Teams in bowl games? SEC=7, PAC1=7
Bowl records? SEC= 3-4 .428, PAC1= 2-5 .286
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=45, PAC1=25
Wins against ranked opponents? SEC=13, PAC1=6


5 year total

Teams in the top 10? SEC=11, PAC1=8
Teams in the top 25? SEC=25, PAC1=14
Teams in bowl games? SEC=35, PAC1=29
Bowl records? SEC= 20-15 .571, PAC1= 15-14 .517
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=240, PAC1=157
Wins against ranked opponents? SEC=61, PAC1=41


Bowl records? SEC= 20-15 .571, PAC1= 15-14 .517
Games against ranked opponents? SEC=240, PAC1=157

Remind me again why any SEC team has to schedule tougher OOC teams? 240-157 nuff said?
Oh I think I get it... so the PAC1 wants the SEC, who already plays more ranked teams, to schedule more tougher games while they play their cupcake in conference schedule just so the PAC1 has a chance to get more than 1 team in a bowl?

---

I think a better way to look at it is to see how many of our games are against bowl teams.


2003= LSU 6 | UO 6 <- LSU wins NC
2004= LSU 7 | UO 5
2005= LSU 6 | UO 6
2006= LSU 7 | UO 6
2007= LSU 9 | UO 8 <- LSU wins NC
2008= LSU 8 | UO 6
2009= LSU 7 | UO 8
2010= LSU 8 | UO 4

7yr Average: LSU plays 7 bowl teams whereas UO plays 6. That means even though UO may play less "cupcakes" by the terms defined in this topic they play one less bowl opponent per year.

In this same 7 year period LSU has faced 4 teams that would win the National Championship whereas UO faced 1.

Geaux Tahel,

I know this is bitter for you to except:
Conference to Conference results BCS era till 2009
As for us, showing us rankings(human votes) means jack shite to us. The link above shows actual play on the field results.

quote:

---

Remind me again why any SEC team has to schedule tougher OOC teams? 240-157 nuff said?

---

This is the biggest fail in logic. A Conference plays more D-2 and other Cupcakes and he uses that to brag as if that is a good thing. Actually missing out on harder teams shows one has a fear of risk of loosing more. If you play more top teams in the country that = a higher risk of loosing. Playing very weak teams gives a greater chance of winning. This is not rocket science.

Rankings are based off votes, human votes. There is human bias in that. Even the computers are linked to rankings. We in the West all believe there is much East Coast Bias. Probably because they do not get to view much PAC football, maybe because our games are on too late for people out East. Rankings mean nothing to us as they are only votes, not actual play on the field results. And the play on the field results show in the BCS era up to currently, we have the highest percentage of wins vs other AQ schools. The SEC is a close second. And head to head, in the BCS era the PAC has beat the SEC more. And on top of it, the SEC schedules the weakest and the PAC the hardest. If you cant connect dots and see how crappy teams like Kentucky and others from the SEC make it to bowl games, you need a brain transplant. And if you cannot count and know that 1 extra in Conference game per PAC school Auto = 5 extra losses to the whole PAC, you need a logic check. And if you do not know their always has been tons of parity in the PAC that = you have not watched much PAC games on TV. Your problem, not mine.

As far as playing the hardest OOC schedules its simple. We are not BSU who plays in the WAC and needs to schedule 1 or 2 tough games. The PAC, even before the BCS and even before strength of scheduling ALWAYS played a very hard OOC schedule. And when USC was the most dominant team in College Football did you ever see them schedule light? Nope! The PAC has always scheduled hard and hopefully will always continue to do it.

Besides UO, if the PAC scheduled the level of cupcakes that the SEC did(the worst in CF) then we would not fill our stands as Football out West is not God over here. We would loose TONS of money in ticket sales(except UO who has sold out for I do not know how many yeas now- but awefull many). And all the PAC schools would loose out on much TV money from playing those big games. And now with this new TV deal this makes us the richest. But with this new deal it ends schools getting to keep 60 percent of TV money. Thus, one top reason why we were always the top Conference for scheduling was for the money in both tickets and TV. Football is not a God over here though. That fact however does not mean necessarily our teams are terrible though. More pro football players have come from California then any other state. And most of the PAC draws from there. The talent is here, just not the support from fans for schools the SEC has. There is just too much beauty and competitions for time to makes ones life revolved around Football over here.

However, where do you even think the word "Bowl" came from? It came from the PAC. We invented it as we invited Big Ten teams to play us in SoCal- at their bowl like stadium. We were the first bowl game putz. Everyone in the country copied us. And our bowl game back in the day was far more popular and superior then any NFL super-bowl. (see the word "bowl" again). Don't act and talk like we have never seen football over here. And don't act and talk like Oregon just showed up to the football world just yesterday and is nothing more then a girls junior high team. You will just make a arse of yourself such as you are.

quote:

---

Conveniently that leaves off bowl games... You can claim that victory over UT all you want, but somehow I think you'd easily trade that for a win against AU.

---

That would be incorrect.
That site lists bowl games. Any game where a Conference team played another is listed. (although it has not been updated to include all of last season's games yet)Click on the top part under whatever Conference you want to see the exact games listed.
Conference Comparisons in BCS era

As I have stated many times, the BCS started in 1998. And that site is not current. As of current, from 1998 to the present, the PAC has a higher winning percentage vs AQ's then any other Conference. You will not know this one fact by viewing only that website. But still, its a cool website. Hopefully they update it really soon there. I like their formats and layout there.

1998 is hardly relevant anymore, and as I said earlier, the SEC is stronger now than it was then. No matter... your ducks will get to learn this the hard way.