fredsdeadfriend
Well-Known Member
Not really. Especially when it's the only team in the conference even ranked.That individual team in the playoffs does represent the conference.
Not really. Especially when it's the only team in the conference even ranked.That individual team in the playoffs does represent the conference.
That's not what I said. So hard debating you when you either can't or refuse to follow along with what's actually being argued.You set the rules I didn’t. You said the Big Ten West and their 75 division titles are better than the Pac 12. Am I suppose to take that remark as you are speaking of the West versus Arizona and Colorado not the entire Pac 12?
It is a step up from the Mayo BowlMinnesota fans think the Cheez-It Bowl is the playoff.
PAC ranks as the worst P5 conf over last 7 years, hands down.BigTen - Haven't had a winning decade vs. the PAC in 60+ years.
Would you consider the B10 better than the Pac 12 cause of bowl record?Not really. Especially when it's the only team in the conference even ranked.
Pretending a contract extension at a mid tier school means that coach is staying if given a job offer. This whole debate started with Franklin possibly leaving Penn State for SC. There isn’t a debate that Penn State is a more attractive job than Minnesota.The only reason it would have been nice to have Fleck in the PAC is to rack up easy wins against his hapless program.
No. Bowls are a dumb measurementWould you consider the B10 better than the Pac 12 cause of bowl record?
So how do you measure who's a better conference?No. Bowls are a dumb measurement
History books....haven't you been paying attentionSo how do you measure who's a better conference?
Minnesota's not mid tierPretending a contract extension at a mid tier school means that coach is staying if given a job offer. This whole debate started with Franklin possibly leaving Penn State for SC. There isn’t a debate that Penn State is a more attractive job than Minnesota.
Well, since conferences are made up of several teams, best way would involve some kind of measurement that rates/ranks several teams.So how do you measure who's a better conference?
History is frowned onHistory books....haven't you been paying attention
Why just several and not the entire conference? Cherry picking a couple teams doesn't measure an entire conference.Well, since conferences are made up of several teams, best way would involve some kind of measurement that rates/ranks several teams.
I'd prefer a rating system that measures entire conferences. But at the same time very few care whether Rutgers rates better than Arizona or Vandy.Why just several and not the entire conference? Cherry picking a couple teams doesn't measure an entire conference.
The bottom of the top 25 no one really cares about. You could probably take the 35th ranked team and the 25th ranked team and there's really no difference. Bowl victories and championships tells us more about a conference.I'd prefer a rating system that measures entire conferences. But at the same time very few care whether Rutgers rates better than Arizona or Vandy.
So for people like that, measuring how many Top 25 teams a conference produces seems best.
PAC ranks as the worst P5 conf over last 7 years, hands down.
If Oregon only wins 25% of it's games vs the Gophers, what does that say about them?If the PAC is the worst conference, but the B1G has a losing record to them in every decade, what does that make the B1G?
So bottom half of the Top 25 means nothing yet bowl records that teams with losing records can play in does? LOLThe bottom of the top 25 no one really cares about. You could probably take the 35th ranked team and the 25th ranked team and there's really no difference. Bowl victories and championships tells us more about a conference.