Interested in what people think. Im sure a few people from the west coast may agree with me but I wonder if anyone from the South will.
At the top its close ty. Usually the SEC simply has more legit contenders and teams who will spend a good chunk of time ranked in the top 10. But ty I don't think thats the case.
After Alabama I only have Georgia and Ole Miss as title contenders. (Im predicting Ole Miss to beat Bama and win the SEC btw.) Georgia and Ole Miss could easily both lose 4-5 games this year.
In the PAC you might not have as imposing a team as Alabama but I'd say that Oregon and UCLA are both better on paper and likely head to head than the second best SEC team. Lets say Georgia and Oregon were playing the opening weekend in Dallas hypothetically. I think the Ducks would be the ones giving points don't you?
I think Stanford beats any SEC team other than Bama on a neutral field and I have them as PAC top dogs. I think Barry Sanders Jr is a great long odds Heisman bet btw.
LSU, Auburn, A+M are all going to be down this year. Auburn and A+M I don't see winning more than 6-7 games under any circumstances. Auby is coming down to earth without Mason and A+M will be good in '15 and '16 but this year they will be lucky to still be ranked come November.
And I think the depth of the PAC is straight up better than the depth of the SEC.
SC isn't even the best LA team and are 3rd best team in California and they are still probably better than Florida or Tennessee. Could Florida or Tennessee beat one of the Arizona schools? I don't think so I think ASU and UofA would beat both.
Interested in what people think. Im sure a few people from the west coast may agree with me but I wonder if anyone from the South will.
At the top its close ty. Usually the SEC simply has more legit contenders and teams who will spend a good chunk of time ranked in the top 10. But ty I don't think thats the case.
After Alabama I only have Georgia and Ole Miss as title contenders. (Im predicting Ole Miss to beat Bama and win the SEC btw.) Georgia and Ole Miss could easily both lose 4-5 games this year.
In the PAC you might not have as imposing a team as Alabama but I'd say that Oregon and UCLA are both better on paper and likely head to head than the second best SEC team. Lets say Georgia and Oregon were playing the opening weekend in Dallas hypothetically. I think the Ducks would be the ones giving points don't you?
I think Stanford beats any SEC team other than Bama on a neutral field and I have them as PAC top dogs. I think Barry Sanders Jr is a great long odds Heisman bet btw.
LSU, Auburn, A+M are all going to be down this year. Auburn and A+M I don't see winning more than 6-7 games under any circumstances. Auby is coming down to earth without Mason and A+M will be good in '15 and '16 but this year they will be lucky to still be ranked come November.
And I think the depth of the PAC is straight up better than the depth of the SEC.
SC isn't even the best LA team and are 3rd best team in California and they are still probably better than Florida or Tennessee. Could Florida or Tennessee beat one of the Arizona schools? I don't think so I think ASU and UofA would beat both.
When you get down to it, who really cares? Some teams in the P12 are better, some in the SEC are better. I think it's a waste of energy to focus on things like this. Focus on the games at hand, between these leagues, or otherwise. It's all about the match ups each week.
When you get down to it, who really cares? Some teams in the P12 are better, some in the SEC are better. I think it's a waste of energy to focus on things like this. Focus on the games at hand, between these leagues, or otherwise. It's all about the match ups each week.
When you get down to it, who really cares? Some teams in the P12 are better, some in the SEC are better. I think it's a waste of energy to focus on things like this. Focus on the games at hand, between these leagues, or otherwise. It's all about the match ups each week.
Agree to an extent. But knowing a conference is really good and deep can give you a better appreciation of the lesser and more overlooked teams.
Im putting money on Ole Miss to win it all this year because people are pegging them as distinctly being the 4th best team in the SEC West. But you can look at that 2 ways. Is the SEC amazing because a national championship contender (I think) can be picked to finish 4th or 5th out of 7 teams? Or are 2 of the 3 teams predicted to finish above them overrated as hell.
The truth is a mixture of both of course.
And look at teams like Cal who can't dream of winning conference games despite having talent and being good recently and normally having top 25 recruting classes...are their struggles a sign of total incompetence in the AD or does it just indicate that league was so good and competitive that the second the program slipped up and lost momentum they found themselves losing every game like Colorado.
And heres an opinion of mine that is relevant to this; Colorado joined the Big Ten instaed of the Pac 12 or merely stayed in the Big 12 they'd be winning 6-7 games a year annually. They don't have a prayer in the Pac 12 and should really quit and join the MWC they are so friggin pathetic.
Some conferences are just soft. Im a Syracuse alum and the ACC is a gift and a dream come true for us. Outside of FSU and Clemson the conference is extremely soft. A mediocre SU team has much easier road to 6-6 in the ACC than it did in the Big East despite being in the stronger half of the league. And when SU plays North Carolina State they don't even get up for us and take us seriously we will not see the same NC St team that FSU sees on a Thursday night on ESPN.
Conference nuances are important. ESPECIALLY IN BASKETS.
Now that being said there is nothing I hate moree than people who root for conferences. Bama fans rooting for Auburn and the 'SEC' are pathetic and should be spat on by any self respecting FB fan.
When you get down to it, who really cares? Some teams in the P12 are better, some in the SEC are better. I think it's a waste of energy to focus on things like this. Focus on the games at hand, between these leagues, or otherwise. It's all about the match ups each week.
Agree to an extent. But knowing a conference is really good and deep can give you a better appreciation of the lesser and more overlooked teams.
Im putting money on Ole Miss to win it all this year because people are pegging them as distinctly being the 4th best team in the SEC West. But you can look at that 2 ways. Is the SEC amazing because a national championship contender (I think) can be picked to finish 4th or 5th out of 7 teams? Or are 2 of the 3 teams predicted to finish above them overrated as hell.
The truth is a mixture of both of course.
And look at teams like Cal who can't dream of winning conference games despite having talent and being good recently and normally having top 25 recruting classes...are their struggles a sign of total incompetence in the AD or does it just indicate that league was so good and competitive that the second the program slipped up and lost momentum they found themselves losing every game like Colorado.
And heres an opinion of mine that is relevant to this; Colorado joined the Big Ten instaed of the Pac 12 or merely stayed in the Big 12 they'd be winning 6-7 games a year annually. They don't have a prayer in the Pac 12 and should really quit and join the MWC they are so friggin pathetic.
Some conferences are just soft. Im a Syracuse alum and the ACC is a gift and a dream come true for us. Outside of FSU and Clemson the conference is extremely soft. A mediocre SU team has much easier road to 6-6 in the ACC than it did in the Big East despite being in the stronger half of the league. And when SU plays North Carolina State they don't even get up for us and take us seriously we will not see the same NC St team that FSU sees on a Thursday night on ESPN.
Conference nuances are important. ESPECIALLY IN BASKETS.
Now that being said there is nothing I hate moree than people who root for conferences. Bama fans rooting for Auburn and the 'SEC' are pathetic and should be spat on by any self respecting FB fan.
If u think Tre Mason was the reason of Auburn having so much success then u don't know much about Auburn.Qb play will be better in passing game because A. Marshall has improved his passing game B.He has better targets to throw to C.off line will be even better D.They might take a slight step back at RB but it won't be significant and the defense will be better.Auburn,Bama,Ga,LSU,Florida,Scar would all defeat Stanford in my opinion.Qb play is better in PAC 12, but u are in the minority if u think the Pac12 is better than the SEC.Ole Miss will be good,but no how no way they win the SEC.PAC 12 is good tho with Ducks,Stanford,UCLA, an improved SCal team, OregSt, Ariz,ASU..I'm not convinced Helfrich or even Shaw are big time coaches.Moreover, I'm not so sure the PAC 12 even has a top 10 coach.No excuse for Shaw to lose to Utah& even Scal team.IMO Gus,Saban,Spurrier, Pinkel, Sumlin,Richt,Miles are better coaches than anybody in the PAC 12.Moreover, the PAC 12 doesn't have the front sevens to compete for a NC.Maybe Oregon& Stanford.I would say they have the 2nd best conference.Take that back on coaches..Peterson is gonna do well.
If u think Tre Mason was the reason of Auburn having so much success then u don't know much about Auburn.Qb play will be better in passing game because A. Marshall has improved his passing game B.He has better targets to throw to C.off line will be even better D.They might take a slight step back at RB but it won't be significant and the defense will be better.Auburn,Bama,Ga,LSU,Florida,Scar would all defeat Stanford in my opinion.Qb play is better in PAC 12, but u are in the minority if u think the Pac12 is better than the SEC.Ole Miss will be good,but no how no way they win the SEC.PAC 12 is good tho with Ducks,Stanford,UCLA, an improved SCal team, OregSt, Ariz,ASU..I'm not convinced Helfrich or even Shaw are big time coaches.Moreover, I'm not so sure the PAC 12 even has a top 10 coach.No excuse for Shaw to lose to Utah& even Scal team.IMO Gus,Saban,Spurrier, Pinkel, Sumlin,Richt,Miles are better coaches than anybody in the PAC 12.Moreover, the PAC 12 doesn't have the front sevens to compete for a NC.Maybe Oregon& Stanford.I would say they have the 2nd best conference.Take that back on coaches..Peterson is gonna do well.
I like the Pac-12 COACHES..........but they don't play.
SEC players are the best in the country. Check out the BCS the last few years.
Most conferences would add wussy teams to their conference so they could beat the crap outta them. Missouri and TexAM not too shabby. We'll see what kind of coach Sumlin is without Johnny Football though.
Big-10 added Maryland and Rutgers.................
I like the Pac-12 COACHES..........but they don't play.
SEC players are the best in the country. Check out the BCS the last few years.
Most conferences would add wussy teams to their conference so they could beat the crap outta them. Missouri and TexAM not too shabby. We'll see what kind of coach Sumlin is without Johnny Football though.
Big-10 added Maryland and Rutgers.................
As to my above post. Please spare me the conference bias angle. I am the biggest SEC and auburn homer there is on this site. I just call it like it is.
As to my above post. Please spare me the conference bias angle. I am the biggest SEC and auburn homer there is on this site. I just call it like it is.
disagree - SEC is still the best and its not close...I think the Big XII will be better than the PAC XII this season...
Really?
Think OK St beats the Arizona schools? Its a fair comparison just with both being in the place in the pecking order in their respective conferences. (Hope you weren't on them against U of A week 2 2012 lol thats one of my all time biggest wins was the ML that night!)
Lets leave Texas out of this cause we'll have very opposite opinions on them and its dumb to argue about that but do you think WVA could beat their PAC equivalent of Oregon St on a neutral field? Or Utah if thats a more fair comparison? Doubtful. Could Iowa State beat Washington St on a neutral field?
How many Pac Teams would Texas Tech beat? I say noone other than Colorado for certain and Tech is about 5th in the Big 12. TT would get destroyed in the PAC and would be lucky to beat Cal.
Its not a bad league and historically the Big 12 has been my favorite conference as a neutral since the SWC and Big 8 merged but its not that good this year.
I think Stanford, Oregon, and UCLA would all take OU.
disagree - SEC is still the best and its not close...I think the Big XII will be better than the PAC XII this season...
Really?
Think OK St beats the Arizona schools? Its a fair comparison just with both being in the place in the pecking order in their respective conferences. (Hope you weren't on them against U of A week 2 2012 lol thats one of my all time biggest wins was the ML that night!)
Lets leave Texas out of this cause we'll have very opposite opinions on them and its dumb to argue about that but do you think WVA could beat their PAC equivalent of Oregon St on a neutral field? Or Utah if thats a more fair comparison? Doubtful. Could Iowa State beat Washington St on a neutral field?
How many Pac Teams would Texas Tech beat? I say noone other than Colorado for certain and Tech is about 5th in the Big 12. TT would get destroyed in the PAC and would be lucky to beat Cal.
Its not a bad league and historically the Big 12 has been my favorite conference as a neutral since the SWC and Big 8 merged but its not that good this year.
I think Stanford, Oregon, and UCLA would all take OU.
SEC is still the best but the gap has narrowed considerably IMO. Two thirds of the SEC played very little defense last year , which was always their claim to being better (having to face an SEC defense every week).
What separates the SEC from other conferences is the depth of the rosters. Every team has injuries or ineffective players, and depth is huge for a team's success unless a team catches every break for a whole season.
SEC is still the best but the gap has narrowed considerably IMO. Two thirds of the SEC played very little defense last year , which was always their claim to being better (having to face an SEC defense every week).
What separates the SEC from other conferences is the depth of the rosters. Every team has injuries or ineffective players, and depth is huge for a team's success unless a team catches every break for a whole season.
Well here are some facts - in the 21st century, the heads up record of the SEC & PAC through the 2013 season is 14-13, with SEC holding a one game advantage. Moreover, the breakdown of those wins goes as expected - when an upper tier SEC team has played a lower tier PAC team it has won decisively and vice versa, when an upper PAC team has played a lower level SEC team it was won decisively; when relatively evenly matched teams from the conferences have played, they have split out. This all suggests much more parity than is commonly perceived by fans (and pundits).
Further, when looking at the ATS record over the same time period, the PAC holds a commanding record of 16-8-3 ATS over the same 27 games. This strongly suggests that the SEC has been overvalued in perception of strength and, accordingly, the PAC has been undervalued by the oddsmakers, sharps and public. I don't know about you, but I will take a 16-8-3 historical betting angle spanning over a decade every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So I think it all points to the conclusion that the conferences are
much closer than most acknowledge in overall strength and parity. I think the SEC at the top could take a modest step back this year simply because they lost an unusual number of great college QBs that will affect offensive production - Johnny Football, Aaron Murray, A.J. McCarren, Mettinberger, Connor Shaw - you don't replace that in one season. SEC defenses will be stout as always. I think we continue to see closer parity in the big 5 conferences with the playoff system to the point that 10 years from now you won't have the SEC winning 7 championships in a row -- the championship will be won by different conferences with no one conference winning more than a couple years in a row IMO. Parity will be the norm going forward ...
Well here are some facts - in the 21st century, the heads up record of the SEC & PAC through the 2013 season is 14-13, with SEC holding a one game advantage. Moreover, the breakdown of those wins goes as expected - when an upper tier SEC team has played a lower tier PAC team it has won decisively and vice versa, when an upper PAC team has played a lower level SEC team it was won decisively; when relatively evenly matched teams from the conferences have played, they have split out. This all suggests much more parity than is commonly perceived by fans (and pundits).
Further, when looking at the ATS record over the same time period, the PAC holds a commanding record of 16-8-3 ATS over the same 27 games. This strongly suggests that the SEC has been overvalued in perception of strength and, accordingly, the PAC has been undervalued by the oddsmakers, sharps and public. I don't know about you, but I will take a 16-8-3 historical betting angle spanning over a decade every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So I think it all points to the conclusion that the conferences are
much closer than most acknowledge in overall strength and parity. I think the SEC at the top could take a modest step back this year simply because they lost an unusual number of great college QBs that will affect offensive production - Johnny Football, Aaron Murray, A.J. McCarren, Mettinberger, Connor Shaw - you don't replace that in one season. SEC defenses will be stout as always. I think we continue to see closer parity in the big 5 conferences with the playoff system to the point that 10 years from now you won't have the SEC winning 7 championships in a row -- the championship will be won by different conferences with no one conference winning more than a couple years in a row IMO. Parity will be the norm going forward ...
And by the way, I'm not saying Ole Miss can't possibly beat Alabama this year, but Bama has won 20 of the last 22 in the series.
Basically just off the eye test from last year early on when they were destroyed Texas. Looked like a monster. Of course noone credited them for that win because BYU had just beat the Horns.
What happened was once they realilzed they weren't playing for a big prize (consecutive road losses to Bama and Auburn) they lost a close heartbreaker to A+M the following week for their 3rd straight loss and then last two weeks of the season they lose to a team of destiny in a dream season in Mizzou and then with 4 losses on the card they didn't show up for MSU and ended 7-5.
So the team looked elite and I can sort of excuse their 5 losses (they were a 2 loss team with any other schedue) and I just think they are a serious notch above A+M and Auburn and a tad better than LSU and right behind Bama with the game being in Oxford being enough to think they beat the Tide.
Their D isn't getting any love even though its better than their offense. So the predictions are they have maybe the best offense in the SEC but not a great D. Well apart from Vandy crazy opener (I had Vandy still pissed) the only team to score over 25 on them was Auburn. Think the D is fine. Lots of talent from those recruiting classes Ndkmdiche (sp) should be a beast I just see them having the horses.
If Peterson was still in Boise I'd say Boise has a team ready to knock off a giant but its a new coach so they should be fine there. Bama game is at home. And they are just as good as everyone else they play LSU on the road is where they probably lose but if they beat Bama they MAYBE get into the SEC Championship game with 2 SEC losses and are definitely in with 1.
We can all look at things diffferent ways. I think MSU was lucky to win the Egg Bowl and that Ole Miss didn't show up that day but some people can view that as MSU is better than Ole Miss and Ole Miss is overrated. To each their own and all that.
And by the way, I'm not saying Ole Miss can't possibly beat Alabama this year, but Bama has won 20 of the last 22 in the series.
Basically just off the eye test from last year early on when they were destroyed Texas. Looked like a monster. Of course noone credited them for that win because BYU had just beat the Horns.
What happened was once they realilzed they weren't playing for a big prize (consecutive road losses to Bama and Auburn) they lost a close heartbreaker to A+M the following week for their 3rd straight loss and then last two weeks of the season they lose to a team of destiny in a dream season in Mizzou and then with 4 losses on the card they didn't show up for MSU and ended 7-5.
So the team looked elite and I can sort of excuse their 5 losses (they were a 2 loss team with any other schedue) and I just think they are a serious notch above A+M and Auburn and a tad better than LSU and right behind Bama with the game being in Oxford being enough to think they beat the Tide.
Their D isn't getting any love even though its better than their offense. So the predictions are they have maybe the best offense in the SEC but not a great D. Well apart from Vandy crazy opener (I had Vandy still pissed) the only team to score over 25 on them was Auburn. Think the D is fine. Lots of talent from those recruiting classes Ndkmdiche (sp) should be a beast I just see them having the horses.
If Peterson was still in Boise I'd say Boise has a team ready to knock off a giant but its a new coach so they should be fine there. Bama game is at home. And they are just as good as everyone else they play LSU on the road is where they probably lose but if they beat Bama they MAYBE get into the SEC Championship game with 2 SEC losses and are definitely in with 1.
We can all look at things diffferent ways. I think MSU was lucky to win the Egg Bowl and that Ole Miss didn't show up that day but some people can view that as MSU is better than Ole Miss and Ole Miss is overrated. To each their own and all that.
1st person I've heard say Auburn will take a step back without Mason..No how no way.This offense is just sickening and it can't be stopped.
I love Tre Mason! That guy was the perfect RB for this system. But reality is they are deep as hell at RB, and with that O-line, and Nick Marshall running the show, they will be taking a step forward this year.
1st person I've heard say Auburn will take a step back without Mason..No how no way.This offense is just sickening and it can't be stopped.
I love Tre Mason! That guy was the perfect RB for this system. But reality is they are deep as hell at RB, and with that O-line, and Nick Marshall running the show, they will be taking a step forward this year.
IMO it is (considering all teams not just the top 1 or 2.
1) big 12 2) PAC 3) ACC 4) SEC
What the....???
You just put the ACC over the SEC? I don't even put the ACC ahead of the Big 10... ACC is soft like a Marshmallow, and their performance outside of conference the past two years (regular season and bowl games) exposes that reality in a BIG way!
IMO it is (considering all teams not just the top 1 or 2.
1) big 12 2) PAC 3) ACC 4) SEC
What the....???
You just put the ACC over the SEC? I don't even put the ACC ahead of the Big 10... ACC is soft like a Marshmallow, and their performance outside of conference the past two years (regular season and bowl games) exposes that reality in a BIG way!
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.